Medical Protocol Not Followed During Treatment of road accident patient: Max Hospital slapped compensation
Consumer court
New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), North-East Delhi recently directed Max Super Speciality Hospital to pay compensation to a patient who underwent treatment at the hospital after sustaining injuries in a road accident.
Filing the consumer complaint, the patient alleged that after undergoing the treatment at Max Hospital, he was diagnosed with a dislocated acromio clavicular joint with superiorly displaced clavicle and edema at a second hospital.
Even though the hospital claimed that the patient was managed conservatively as per the referral and advice given by an Orthopaedician, the Commission noted that there no evidence on record to establish their case and awarded the patient Rs 1,25,000 as compensation and Rs 50,000 as legal cost for deficiency in service.
The history of the case goes back to 2020 when the complainant suffered internal injuries after a road accident and was taken to Max Hospital with complaints of severe bodily pain especially in right shoulder, rib, and head and after consultation with the doctors at the hospital. The medical tests revealed that all the reports were normal and after undergoing treatment from the hospital, the complainant was discharged.
It was alleged despite the fact that he was going through severe pain in his right shoulder, the doctors further advised to take complete rest for two weeks and also prescribed medicines. However, there was no improvement in his condition so he decided to get second opinion from another hospital.
Accordingly, the complainant approached Apollo Hospital and fresh medical tests were conducted and found that the right shoulder had been dislocated i.e. dislocated acromio clavicular joint with superiorly displaced clavicle and Complainant was suffering from edema and had not been treated properly.
The complainant claimed that his injury was 3rd level injury and he was advised for surgery costing around Rs 2.5 to 3 lacs. Further, the patient approached AIIMS Hospital for a third opinion and the doctors revealed the same problem.
Therefore, filing the consumer complaint, the patient alleged that the doctors and the hospital failed to comply with their duties as a service provider and their negligent attitude not only made him face financial loss but also caused mental trauma and utter shock. He prayed for Rs 12,50,000 as compensation.
On the other hand, the hospital and the doctors contested the complaint and insisted that there was no negligence as the Trauma Protocol of the Hospital was strictly followed and all necessary investigation was done as per the Patient's clinical symptoms.
They submitted that the X-Ray of the RIght shoulder did not show any fracture/dislocation/abnormality. There was no obvious bony deformity seen and no signs of fracture (crepitus/ecchymosis) warranting any further investigation at that stage. Therefore, the patient was managed conservatively and was given relieving medication along with Arm Sling pouch and Ice packs.
It was their contention that as per the protocol, in the cases of acute life-threatening injury such as Rib fractures & Pneumothorax, it is not advisable to subject the patient for unnecessarily and unwarranted investigations unless and until there is significant issue needing further investigation immediately. However, they submitted that the patient was advised for a follow-up to further evaluate his shoulder injury after 5 days in Orthopedic OPD. The Right Shoulder injury was to be examined once the patient's pain and swelling had subsided with stress view X-ray and CT/MRI subjected to the progress report of the patient and subjected to the clinical findings of the patient. However, they submitted that the patient neither turned up for a follow-up as advised nor did he attempt to either inform or get in touch with the treating doctor/unit, in spite of the alleged claim of persistent severe pain and non-resolution of his complaints.
While considering the matter, the District Commission perused the medical record filed by the complainant and also the Medical prescription by a Doctor from Apollo Hospital, MRI report etc. and the second opinion sought from Apollo Hospital. It was found that the complainant's right shoulder had been dislocated. "It is also clear from the record that the complainant sought third opinion from AIIMS and is still undergoing treatment from AIIMS for the same injury," noted the Commission.
Further, the Commission noted that even though the hospital and the doctors argued that the treatment was given to the patient as per the Orthopaedician's referral and advice, "Opposite Parties have not led any cogent and substantive evidence showing that Orthopedician’s referral or general surgery opinion were sought and followed."
"Opposite Parties have also not filed any affidavit of the concerned doctors to the effect that any such advice was given in response. Hence, the defence of the Opposite Parties cannot be believed as true as they have not produced a single evidence whatsoever in support of their contentions," opined the Consumer Court.
Referring to the evidence, the Commission observed, "Since, perusal of the evidence led by the complainant shows that his case is well substantiated and from the bills & invoices it is also clear that he had to incur further expenses in his further treatment and investigations. On the other hand, Opposite Parties have miserably failed to establish their case that medical protocol was followed in managing the complainant’s case conservatively. They have not led any cogent evidence in support of their defence."
Accordingly, the Commission opined that hospital and doctors have been deficient in services towards the complainant causing him mental, physical as well as financial loss.
"Thus the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Max Super Specialty Hospital is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/-towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9 % from the date of this order till its recovery," the Commission ordered.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/north-delhi-dcdrc-255054.pdf
