Patient dies after hernia surgery: Gujarat consumer court slaps Rs 65.5 lakh compensation on hospital, doctor for negligence
Medical Negligence
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed a doctor and a private hospital to pay Rs 65.5 lakh in compensation, along with 8 percent interest, to the family of a 58-year-old patient who died after hernia surgery.
The Commission took note of the findings of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) Ethics Committee, which pointed out several lapses in the treatment, including inadequate documentation, irregularities in investigations and concerns over the manner in which the surgery was conducted.
According to a report by The Times of India, the patient was admitted to a private hospital in Surat on February 20, 2016, for hernia surgery. The procedure, which was reportedly expected to take around 15 minutes, continued for more than two hours.
Following the surgery, the patient developed severe abdominal pain, vomiting and swelling. His family alleged that despite repeated complaints, the treating doctor failed to adequately investigate his deteriorating condition.
As his condition worsened, he was shifted to another hospital, where he underwent another surgery. During the procedure, doctors reportedly found an intestinal perforation, which had resulted in leakage, pus formation and peritonitis. The patient died approximately a week after the initial surgery.
The family subsequently approached the consumer commission, alleging medical negligence and improper postoperative management.
During the proceedings, the family's counsel submitted that the postmortem report and subsequent forensic investigation linked the death to intestinal perforation and peritonitis.
The complainants also referred to an FIR registered against the treating doctor under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, along with the erstwhile MCI's decision to restrain the doctor from practising medicine for one year.
The doctor and hospital, however, denied the allegations of negligence. They maintained that the patient had been examined and treated in accordance with prevailing medical practices and that reasonable care, skill and diligence had been exercised during treatment.
While examining the matter, the Commission relied on the observations of the MCI Ethics Committee, which had identified several deficiencies in the treatment records and surgical management.
The committee noted that the patient's case history had not been written by the treating doctor and that investigations were neither properly conducted nor signed by competent pathologists.
The issue of anaesthesia administration was also examined. According to the report, the anaesthetist had refused to administer anaesthesia because the patient's stomach was full. The treating doctor subsequently proceeded with the surgery under local anaesthesia.
However, the discharge certificate recorded the use of both forms of anaesthesia, despite the doctor's statement that spinal anaesthesia had been refused.
Referring to the committee's findings, the Commission observed:
"Considering the total circumstances, the committee observed that the procedure smacks of adhocism, non-application of mind, casual approach and also lack of behaviour and skills that is expected of a surgeon."
The Commission also reiterated that an unsuccessful medical outcome alone does not establish negligence. The question is whether the treating doctor possessed the necessary skill and exercised reasonable competence in providing treatment.
In this regard, the Commission observed, as quoted by TOI:
"A doctor is not liable merely because the treatment did not produce the desired result; liability arises where the doctor lacks the requisite skill or fails to exercise reasonable competence."
Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the findings concerning the treatment provided, the Commission directed the doctor and hospital to pay Rs 65.5 lakh to the deceased patient's family, along with interest at 8%, adds TOI
