Haryana Urologist surgeon slapped Rs 2 lakh compensation for negligence in kidney stone surgery
Karnal: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Karnal, has directed a urologist-surgeon to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to a patient who developed persistent bleeding, blood clots, and a blockage of the urinary passage after undergoing kidney stone surgery.
Holding the treating doctor guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, the District Consumer Court ordered compensation.
Case Background:
The history of the case goes back to 2023, when the patient, suffering from a kidney stone, consulted the doctor for treatment. He was informed that the kidney stone would be broken and removed through the urinary tract.
After conducting the necessary tests, an infection was detected and the doctor started treatment. On 11.03.2023, the doctor put a stent, discharged the patient.
On March 26, when the complainant came for surgery, the doctor explained about the possibilities of more infection if the surgery is performed through urinary tract and suggested getting the operation done by "Doorbeen". Accordingly, the operation was conducted, and the patient was discharged. During the surgery, a catheter was inserted for the passing of urine, and the doctor advised removal of the said catheter after two weeks. Soon after discharge, the patient developed blood in his urine. Even though he informed the doctor about the bleeding, his condition kept worsening, and he later developed blood clots that blocked the passage of urine and caused immense pain. After getting readmitted and remaining under treatment for a few days, the patient was referred to Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre in Delhi.
An angiography conducted at the facility revealed a large pseudoaneurysm in a branch of the patient's kidney. To treat this, the doctor performed selective embolisation to stop the bleeding, and the patient was discharged the next day.
Filing the consumer complaint, the patient/complainant alleged that while conducting the kidney stone removal surgery, the treating doctor cut the artery/vein of the complainant, which led to the occurrence of Pseudoaneursym and Hematuria. Pseudoaneursym occurs when blood vessel/artery is injured/ruptured and the blood starts coming out of artery.
It was alleged that while conducting the surgery, the treating doctor did not take proper care and caution while performing the surgery and cut the vein of the complainant, due to which, the blood appeared in urine. Further, due to the rupturing of the vein, the blood clots started forming in the complainant's body and the said clots also blocked the way of urine, which caused immense pain. The counsel for the complainant argued that had the timely treatment not been given to the complainant, it could have led to his death.
On the other hand, the doctor denied negligence charges. He said that the bleeding was a known complication of kidney stone surgery and the patient had been informed about the risks. Further, the doctor claimed that the patient was provided proper treatment whenever he reported problems and was referred to a higher centre when required. Apart from this, the doctor argued that there was no expert medical opinion to prove negligence.
Observations by Consumer Court:
After considering the arguments by both the parties, the Consumer Court noted discrepancies in the medical records. It was observed that even though the procedure was described as RIRS in the discharge summary, the referral summary issued later stated that PCNL (Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy) and DJ Stenting had been performed.
"...in the discharge summary dated 28.03.2023 as well as in the subsequent discharge summary issued at the time of removal of the DJ stent, OP No.1 (urologist surgeon) recorded the procedure performed only as “Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery”, without any reference whatsoever to PCNL having been resorted to. It is only in the Referral Summary dated 06.04.2023, wherein it has been shown that complainant's condition had already deteriorated on account of persistent haematuria and clot retention, that OP No.1 for the first time disclosed that the complainant had undergone “Left P.C.N.L. & DJ Stenting”. This material discrepancy between the discharge summaries and the referral summary, coming as it does only after the complainant's condition worsened, remains unexplained by OP No.1 and lends credence to the complainant's case that OP No.1 attempted to withhold the true nature and extent of the procedure performed upon him," observed the consumer court.
Addressing the argument that there was no expert opinion of the Board of Doctors to prove medical negligence of the treating doctor, the Commission observed, "In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case from the treatment record, it is crystal clear that after conducting the surgery/treatment done by the OP no.1, the condition of the complainant has become deteriorated and finally after referring to the Batra Hospital on 07.04.2023 where he was cured and discharged on the very next day i.e. 08.04.2023. The expert evidence is required where the case is complicated enough and the commission is unable to resolve the issue involved without the assistance of expert opinion."
At this outset, the Commission relied on the order in the case of Mishra Vs. Sahara India Medical Institute, where NCDRC held that the Fora under the Act must come to a conclusion that the case is complicated enough to require the opinion of an expert or that the facts of the case are such that it cannot be resolved by the members of the Fora without the assistance of expert opinion.
"This court makes it clear that in these matters no mechanical approach can be followed by these Fora. Each case has to be judged on its own facts. If a decision is taken that in all cases medical negligence has to be proved on the basis of expert evidence, in that event the efficacy of remedy provided under this Act will be unnecessarily burdened and in many cases such remedy would be illusory. Hence, in view of the above, the plea taken by the OPs has no force," observed the DCDRC.
The Commission also perused the records of the Batra Hospital and noted, "A careful perusal of the records of Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Delhi reveal that angiography performed through the right femoral route disclosed a large segmental branch pseudoaneurysm in the lower pole of the kidney, necessitating selective embolization, after which the bleeding was successfully occluded and the complainant was discharged on 08.04.2023. These contemporaneous medical records corroborate the complainant's version of continued bleeding, blood clots and stoppage of urine following the surgery performed by OP No.1. The OP No.1 kept the complainant under observation between 26.03.2023 and 06.04.2023, and referred him to a higher centre equipped for angioembolization only on 07.04.2023, by which time the complainant's condition had become precarious."
"This delay in appropriate escalation, coupled with the careless treatment squarely amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three, “duty”, “breach” and “resulting damage"," it concluded.
The consumer court held that the treating doctor firstly conducted the surgery negligently, due to which, the complainant's condition deteriorated and he was referred to Delhi's hospital.
"If the complainant was not cure then the position would be otherwise. In view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that firstly OP no.1 has conducted the surgery of complainant in a negligent manner and secondly did not refer the complainant to higher institute at earlier stage for proper management, which is also amounting negligence on the part of the OP hospital," it held.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded, "Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OP no.1 amounts to deficiency in service while conducting the surgery upon the complainant."
The DCDRC directed the doctor to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the complainant and ordered, "The complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss due to negligence act of OP No.1 Complainant was insured and major part of the treatment expenses would have been paid by the insurance company. No doubt, during treatment complainant would have spent part amount on account of treatment and also spent on medicines, diet, transportation etc. However, grant of compensation would be just a consolation to the complainant, who will had to face difficulties. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- which is on the very higher side. Hence, it would be justified, if an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be awarded to the complainant on account of compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss etc."
"Since a clear finding of medical negligence and deficiency in service stands returned against OP No.1 hereinabove, and the treatment giving rise to the cause of action falls squarely within the currency of the said Professional Indemnity Policy, OP No.2 is liable to indemnify OP No.1 and to satisfy the compensation awarded to the complainant, to the extent hereinafter directed," ordered the consumer court.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/29/dcdrc-karnal-order-medical-neg-422563.pdf
