No Medical Negligence in Conducting Laminectomy: NCDRC exonerates Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital
New Delhi: Finding no evidence for proving negligence in performing laminectomy, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently exonerated the Orthopedic Surgeon Dr Abraham and other doctors at Kerala based Mariya Hospital Adoor.
Such a decision was taken by the top consumer court after it took note of the fact that the allegation of the complainant was that the operation was performed at wrong site had no basis.
The bench noted that the cyst at D-5 level was noted after 8 months. The D-5 level is above the level of L-4 and L-5, the area of laminectomy operation and the spinal cord was not touched or operated. "There is no nexus or relation between the two sites (D5 and L4-5) and the lesions were entirely different. The MRI dated 9.1.2001 did show any Cyst at D5 level," noted the top consumer court.
The case of the petitioner is that she alleged that she had problem at D-5 level, however the treating doctors at Mariya Hospital Adoor had wrongly performed operation at L-4 and L-5 level and removed portions of the vertebra causing injury to nerves which resulted paralysis below the hip. It was alleged that the doctors were not qualified to do neurosurgery.
Taking note of the fact that there was no evidence to prove that the diagnosis and the surgery was wrong and improper, the Forum rejected the main allegation that all the complications of the complainant including the paralysis was due to the negligent and improper Surgery by the treating doctors and the second surgery was necessitated due to the 1st surgery.
After the Forum had dismissed the complaint, the complainant moved to the State Commission, which again dismissed it. When the matter reached NCDRC, the top consumer court perused the medical record including X- Ray report, MRI, and noted that the reports showed degeneration at L3-4 and L4-5 intervertebral discs causing compression over the exiting nerve root bilaterally and indentation over the thecal sac. The X-ray revealed spondylitis L-5 pedicle with probable spinal stenosis at L4-5 and S-1.
Consequently, the Orthopedic surgeon conducted the laminectomy as per standard procedure with his expertise. The patient was discharged thereafter.
At this outset, the bench noted that the cyst at D-5 level was noted after 8 months. The D-5 level is above the level of L-4 and L-5 the area of laminectomy operation and the spinal cord was not touched or operated. "There is no nexus or relation between the two sites (D5 and L4-5) and the lesions were entirely different. The MRI dated 9.1.2001 did show any Cyst at D5 level," noted the top consumer court.
Therefore, finding no error in the earlier orders passed by the District and State Commission, the NCDRC bench dismissed the complaint and noted, "Thus, considering the entirety of the case in our considered view, it was a reasonable standard of practice adopted by the Opposite Party No.1 & there was no role of Opposite Party No.2 in performing laminectomy. There was neither negligence nor any deficiency /any lapses during the laminectomy operation at L-4 and L-5. Thus, for the reasons stated above , we do not find any material irregularity and jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the Fora below warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Act."
To read the order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/ncdrc-no-medical-negligence-176812.pdf
