Court holds no Medical Negligence, Kerala Hospital still pays Rs 7 lakh compensation
Compensation
New Delhi: Noting that every death of a patient cannot, on the face of it, be considered as death due to medical negligence, unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has exonerated Kerala-based Deen Hospital from charges of medical negligence in treating a patient who underwent laparoscopic sterilization and died after the surgery.
NCDRC Presiding Officer Dr SM Kanitkar overturned the state commission order but the hospital, despite being absolved, expressed its willingness to pay the amount of Rs 7 lakh already deposited with the State Commission.
The NCDRC accepted the same but said that the same should not be treated as a precedent.
The case concerned a 37-year-old patient who underwent laparoscopic sterilization in the facility but died after the surgery. According to the complainant, the cause of death showed that general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia were administered to the patient simultaneously.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the surgery was expected to be completed within half an hour, but it took longer than scheduled due to respiratory problems. The patient was later transferred to Poyanil Hospital and then to Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Unfortunately, she was pronounced dead the following day.
The counsel alleged that the cause of death showed that General Anaesthesia and Spinal Anaesthesia were administered on the patient simultaneously. The injection marked on the back of trunk shown in the post mortem was characteristic feature of anesthesia. It was due to negligence of the doctors who did laparoscopic sterilization in causal manner. The operation was done casually. The patient was in sound health. He added that, "The brain hypoxia and ARDS because of injuries to the spinal canal where by dura was punctured. The doctor administered anesthesia. However, he was not qualified to administer anesthesia as he was not anesthetist. The hospital had no accreditation from the Health Department to conduct laparoscopic sterilization on females. Therefore, the hospital was not competent to conduct laparoscopic surgery. The surgery was not warranted when the patient was ailing from respiratory distress."
Meanwhile, the hospital and the doctors filed their joint written versions and denied the allegations. They argued that the patient was managed with care and shifted to a higher centre without delay and everything necessary was done with best of interest of the patient on mind.
However, the hospital and the doctors were held guilty of medical negligence by the State Dispute Redressal Commission and were directed to pay a compensation of Rs 7 lakh to the deceased patient's family.
Being aggrieved by the compensation, the complainant moved the apex consumer body.
After hearing the parties, the apex consumer found that the doctor was competent to administer anesthesia for minor procedures. It said;
"Adverting to the qualification of the anesthetist, it is transpired from the evidence that she completed one year exclusive senior house residency in anesthesia in the Govt. hospital. She had experience in the field of anesthesia over 25 years. The Travancore Kochi Medical Council allows doctor with MBBS to administer anesthesia. In my view, she was competent to administer anesthesia for minor procedures."
It referred to the case of Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab wherein the Supreme Court had laid down the test for establishing medical negligence. It said that in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent.
With this, the appeal against the State Commission's order was allowed. While setting aside the State Commission's order, NCDRC noted;
"It is pertinent to note that in the instant case after the surgery the doctors in the operation theatre have effectively managed the complications and done resuscitation. The patient was referred at appropriate time to Poyanil Hospital for ventilator support. In my view, negligence cannot be attributed to OPs 1 to 3 (the hospital and the two doctors). The post mortem findings of spinal anesthesia are erroneous. Therefore, whole approach of State Commission, holding the OPs guilty of medical negligence is not sustainable in law. The First Appeal No.662/2013 filed by the OPs is allowed and the First Appeal No.358/2013 filed by the Complainant is dismissed. Consequently, the Complaint filed before the State Commission stand dismissed."
The order further read;
"The learned Counsel for OPs on instructions from OP-1 (the hospital) made submissions that, on humanitarian grounds, the OP-1 on his own volition wishes to pay the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs which has already been deposited in the State Commission. Therefore, the Registrar of the State Commission is directed to release Rs.7 lakhs along with the accrued interest to the Complainants within six weeks from today. It is made clear that, in any manner this shall not be construed as a precedent."
To view the original order, click on the link below:
