Perforated appendix missed, gall bladder removed: NCDRC upholds medical negligence

New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum's order in a case where a patient's gall bladder was wrongly removed during laparoscopic surgery without her consent. The Forum had concluded that the doctor was negligent and failed to diagnose the patient's perforated appendix and did not refer her to a specialist. Consequently, the doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the patient, who was incorrectly diagnosed and operated on, resulting in her becoming bedridden.The Presiding Member of the NCDRC, Subhash Chandra, set aside the order issued by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, and affirmed the District Forum's decision.In 2011, a woman and her husband visited a doctor at Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda, for abdominal pain on the right side. He advised an ultrasound scan and subsequently recommended gall bladder operation to remove small stones using laparoscopic surgery within 3-4 months. However, due to having a 10-month-old child, the petitioner postponed the operation. In 2012, they returned to the hospital, where the doctor recommended an emergency operation to remove gall bladder stones. The surgery was conducted and the patient was discharged but soon returned with severe pain.Consequently, the doctor referred her to a Gastroenterologist, who diagnosed bile leakage from the CBD (Main Liver Duct) based on a CT scan. He inserted a CBD stent to address the leakage, and the patient was discharged. She revisited the Gastroenterologist due to severe abdominal pain, leading to lab tests at Pioneer Imaging and Diagnostics. In consultation, the two doctors referred the patient to PGI, Chandigarh.The patient was admitted to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, for further treatment related to complications arising from the alleged incorrect surgery and wrongly inserted CBD stent. The patient stayed in the hospital where a scan prompted a major operation, conducted by Dr. Satap Singh Virk, M.S. (Surgery), to remove pus, excess fluid in the abdomen, and address bile leakage.The patient was discharged but had subsequent consultations at DMC, Ludhiana, and underwent surgery due to ongoing abdominal pain, with several more visits to DMC, Ludhiana thereafter.The patient alleged that the two doctors were negligent in diagnosing and treating her, leading to substantial expenses of Rs 2,54,000 for medicines, tests, doctors, diet, and more. The incorrect diagnosis and treatment resulted in prolonged medical care and have left her physically incapacitated and unable to carry out daily activities. Consequently, she moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda seeking compensation of Rs 15 lakhs for the loss of physical health, mental stress, permanent disability, and other costs, including fees charged by the doctor and the the Gastroenterologist.The District Forum partially ruled in the complainant's favor, holding the doctor responsible and awarding her Rs.15,000 in costs. However, they dismissed the complaint against the Gastroenterologist.The Forum's order concluded that the doctors failed to fulfill their responsibilities. They didn't conduct necessary investigations before treatment and didn't advise the patient to seek a second opinion or consult a specialist. Despite the complainant's continued pain after 11-12 days of treatment, the doctor should have promptly referred her to a higher institute or sought a second opinion, but they neglected to do so. The delay in treatment due to this negligence caused physical and financial suffering to the complainant.Observing that the doctor did not get any investigations done prior to treatment and thereafter he kept on sitting and showed carelessness in giving treatment to the complainant by taking it guaranteed that the problem does not relate to stent, the Forum accepted the complaint against the doctor with cost of Rs.15,000/- and directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation which includes treatment expenses and for physical pains and sufferings which the patient suffered due to negligence on the part of the doctor.The petitioner appealed this decision to the State Commission for enhancement of compensation, however, the State Commission disagreed with the District Forum's assessment. The State Commission concluded that the District Forum was mistaken in attributing medical negligence to the doctor, as post-operative complications can be expected.The State Commission stated that the order of the District Forum has not appreciated the facts of the case in its proper perspective qua the doctor since (a) no doctor can assure recovery of any patient; (b) a qualified doctor following standard medical procedure in treating a patient cannot be said to be medically negligent; (c) the District Forum erred in holding the doctor to be medically negligent despite the accepted position that complications do occur in the...