NCDRC holds Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation Against Nursing Home for negligence, Sets Aside Suspension Order of Anaesthetist
Compensation
New Delhi: Holding a Nursing Home liable for deficiency in service due to lapses in the treatment of a patient who died while undergoing gall bladder surgery, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld Rs 7.5 lakh compensation imposed on the facility by the State Consumer Court, West Bengal.
However, modifying the State Commission's order, the Apex Consumer Court set aside the State Commission's recommendation to the state medical council to suspend the registration of the treating anaesthetist for three years.
"The allegations of medical negligence have also been duly examined by the Medical Experts and the lapses of OPs in providing treatment to the patient have been established. The learned State Commission went into details and passed a well-reasoned order to bringing out the negligence and deficiency in service with respect to treating the patient. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of learned State Commission, except with respect to certain penal actions against Respondent No.3. Therefore, I modify the order of learned State Commission to the extent that “We also recommend to West Bengal Medical Council to suspend the registration of Dr. *** Chowdhury for a period of 3 years with immediate ef ect, debarring her from practicing for the said period. Let her exercise some remorse when she will be debarred from practicing.” is set aside. The present Revision Petition No.1171 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly," ordered the Apex Consumer Court.
The history of the case goes back to 2008 when the complainant's mother was admitted to Life Line Nursing Home on 10.06.2008 for gallbladder surgery, as per the advice of Dr Ghosh, the surgeon. The patient was operated on the same day by Dr Ghosh, Dr Chowdhary (anaesthetist), one of the proprietors of the nursing home, and some other doctors.
It was alleged by the complainant that Dr Ghosh and Dr Chowdhary were responsible for his mother's death in the operation theatre due to medical negligence. He argued that five teeth of the patient were broken during the procedure and she died due to anaesthesia reversal failure.
Further, it was alleged that the treating doctors tried to deceive the patient's family by transferring the deceased to the ICU posthumously. He also argued that the nursing home did not have a proper license under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act of 1950.
On the other hand, the Nursing Home denied any deficiency in service or negligence, asserting that all requisite treatments were provided in pursuit of the patient's recovery. The treating surgeon, Dr. Ghosh asserted that both the nursing home and attending medical professionals, including the anaesthetist, exercised the utmost care in treating the patient. He denied all allegations in the complaint and contended that the claims of negligence and service deficiency were unfounded and sought dismissal of the case. He also claimed that the patient's family were properly informed about the potential complications and the surgical procedure before the operation.
Dr Chowdhary, the anaesthetist also denied all the allegations and referred to the report of Dr Mukherjee, a renowned ENT surgeon who submitted a report to the Enquiry Committee supporting Dr Chowdhary's position. Also, an Associate Professor of the Dept of Anaesthesiology also submitted a report which did not find any culpability on her part before the Enquiry Committee of Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. The doctor also submitted that post-operative complications are common in patients over 60 years.
While considering the matter, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint holding that there was no evidence to prove that the nursing home was negligent in giving sufficient service to the patient or cause any negligence for the fateful death of the complainant's mother in the nursing home.
However, the West Bengal State Commission held that the nursing home and the doctor were negligent after referring to the opinion given by the West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) which held that the anaesthetist should have been more careful with respect to an elderly patient, particularly in view of her limited exposer/training in the field of Anesthesiology and that she had no post-graduate degree/diploma in the field of Anesthesiology.
Directing the nursing home and doctors to pay Rs 7.5 lakh compensation, the Commission had ordered, "Considering the facts and circumstances, the degree of negligence on the part of the OPs we quantify the compensation at an amount of Rs. 7 Lakh as prayed for by the complainant, apart from litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-. We have held in earlier paragraph that OP 3 was very much negligent in treating the patient and she treated the patient most casually and in a neglected manner. We find the element of breach of duty, negligence absence of due care in the treatment of the deceased by both the OPs, specially by OP 3."
The State Commission had held that an exemplary punishment would be fit and proper for the anaesthetist and also noted that the nursing home was running without license on the date of the incident as observed by the Enquiry Committee appointed by Chief Medical Officer of Health, Burdwan and Chairman of Enquiry Committee.
"We also recommend to West Bengal Medical Council to suspend the registration of Dr. Arunima Chowdhury for a period of 3 years with immediate ef ect, debarring her from practicing for the said period. Let her exercise some remorse when she will be debarred from practicing," the State Commission had ordered.
The order was challenged before the Apex Consumer Court which observed that the nursing home and doctors had obtained proper consent, which was placed on record as well. So, in this respect, there was no deficiency.
Regarding the duty of care, the top consumer court cited the Supreme Court order in the case of Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole and noted, "A breach of any of these duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. This means that when a medical professional, who possesses a certain degree of skill and knowledge, decides to treat a patient, he is duty bound to treat him/her with a reasonable degree of skill, care, and knowledge. Failure to act in accordance with the medical standards in vogue and failure to exercise due care and diligence are generally deemed to constitute medical negligence."
Regarding the aspect of accuracy of the diagnosis, the standard of care during surgery and appropriateness of treatment, the Commission noted that there were specific allegations and vigorous resistance to the same by nursing home and doctors bringing details of treatment that was given to the patient.
Relying on the WBMC's report, the NCDRC bench opined that there was medical negligence and observed,
"It is undisputed that, the patient unfortunately died the very next day. It has been brought on record that the WB Medical Council has gone into in depth investigation and held OP-1 and 2 liable on specific grounds stated therein. Thus, medical negligence with respect to treatment of the patient has been established. OP-1 to 3 persisted with efforts to conceal facts as to why, during the course of Gallbladder surgery, the patient died under such trying circumstances within some hours of operation. It has been stated that the Complainant and his family members had resorted to physical violence against the hospital which, if true, would entail action under penal law."
Although the bench upheld the order of compensation by the State Commission, it set aside the State Commission's recommendation to WBMC to suspend the registration of the anaesthetist Dr. Chowdhary for 3 years.
The allegations of medical negligence have also been duly examined by the Medical Experts and the lapses of OPs in providing treatment to the patient have been established. The learned State Commission went into details and passed a well-reasoned order to bringing out the negligence and deficiency in service with respect to treating the patient. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of learned State Commission, except with respect to certain penal actions against Respondent No.3. Therefore, I modify the order of learned State Commission to the extent that “We also recommend to West Bengal Medical Council to suspend the registration of Dr. ***Chowdhury for a period of 3 years with immediate ef ect, debarring her from practicing for the said period. Let her exercise some remorse when she will be debarred from practicing.” is set aside. The present Revision Petition No.1171 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly.
To view the order, click on the link below:
