Post-Operative Infection after Implant Surgery: Orthopedic Surgeon, Hospital directed to Pay Rs 5 lakh

Such a decision came after the Commission took note of the discharge summary of the second hospital where the patient had to be re-operated for recovery.

"In our view, it is a clear case that falls in the category of medical negligence as it was only after the treatment at [***]Hospital that the complainant recovered fully and in view of the fact that reference has been made in the discharge summary that complainant went to [***]Hospital with complaints of pain and inability to supine and prone left arm. Above said circumstance shows that sufficient care was not taken while inserting DCP plate. Hence we are inclined to consider the contention of the complainant," noted the court.

Also Read: Ureters Damaged During Hysterectomy Surgery: Consumer Court directs Doctors to Cough up Rs 28.5 lakh Compensation

The case goes back to 2018 when the complainant fell down from his motor cycle due to skid. As he sustained serious injuries including fracture of left fore-arm, he was immediately shifted to a nearby Government hospital for first-aid and later he was advised to consult an Orthopaedician.

Consequently, he was referred to a hospital with better facilities and he underwent surgery to the fractured bones of the right fore-arm as the treating doctor inserted implants. However, after a few days, the fracture side started to bleed and when the treating doctor was consulted again he assured that it was nothing to worry about as the bad blood was oozing.

As the problem didn't resolve, the treating doctor advised X-ray and after studying the report, he opined that there was no problem with the wound, but the discharge of sinus from the fracture site didn't stop.

Following this, the complainant consulted another Orthopaedic Surgeon, who after examining the complainant after seeing the X-Ray taken at first hospital stated that the bone was infected as such not united properly and requires further surgery to remove the infected implant and to replace new implant. He also stated that without surgery, fractured bone size would be decreased and bone grafting would be required and that would result of shortening of left fore-arm.

He further stated that he had to take follow up treatment elsewhere and had to undergo surgery as tenderness was found and the surgical site was not healthy and he was finally discharged with an advice for follow-up treatment and physiotherapy.

Claiming that the treating doctor didn't inform about the inspection in spite of several follow up visits, the Complainant claimed it be medical negligence and further pointed out how he had sustained mental stress and how he became incapable of leading a normal life. Thus, filing the complaint before the consumer court, the complainant sought compensation.

On the other hand, the treating doctor resisted the claims and denied any medical negligence in the treatment process. It has been stated on behalf of the doctor that he had conducted a surgery on the complainant by way of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) with dynamic compression plate (DCP) radius + Recon plating ulna, after explaining the complications of anesthesia and post operation complications to the complainant.

It has further been submitted that the patient was discharged with an advice for proper care of the wound and to review after 5 days. During the follow-up visit, it was noticed that the wound had almost healed and stitches were also removed. On the following consultation, the complainant complained oozing of blood from wound site, in order to control the same proper dressing was done. Subsequently when the complainant visited he reported pain. The doctor on examination found that one of the screws implanted to the (DCP) radius + recon plating ulna was loosened. It has been claimed that this had happened as the complainant was negligent in taking proper care in the movement and had handled the wound in a rough manner. However it was set right and complainant was advised to take proper care.

Further claiming that the X-Ray reports taken before and after the surgery would show how perfectly the implantations were done, the doctor further claimed that the post operative complications including infection arose due to the negligent attitude of the complainant.

Mentioning that post-operative complications and infections are pretty common and require follow up treatment, the doctor alleged that instead of coming back to him for further consultation, the patient chose to approach other doctors and got the DCP replaced.

The Commission took note of the contention of the Complainant that the discharge summary of the second hospital clearly indicated that upon clinical examination tenderness was found positive, and surgical site not healthy with discharge.

It also took note of the contentions by the doctors and the hospital and after going through the entire material, and carefully considering the contentions of both the parties, the Commission noted, "we find that there is no dispute that first surgery was done at the Opposite Parties hospital on 28.11.2018 and discharged on 02.12.2018 and they informed the patient that review after 5 days, accordingly complainant followed the treatment on 08.12.2018 and several other times, Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 reveal the same."

However, taking note of the fact that another surgery was conducted at the second hospital, the Commission noted, "The best course for the concerned doctor was that the complainant ought to have been operated upon again to set right or in the alternative the complainant should have been told the correct position and would have been advised either to get him operated upon either from him or from some other doctor of his choice, but no such procedure was adopted by the Opposite Parties and instead he continued to assured the complainant even after two months of operation inspite of discharge of sinus from fracture side was not stopped."

Opining it to be a case of medical negligence, and taking note of the fact that the complainant was fully recovered only after getting treatment at the second hospital, the Consumer Court noted, "In our view it is a clear case that falls in the category of medical negligence as it was only after the treatment at [***]Hospital that the complainant recovered fully and in view of the fact that reference has been made in the discharge summary that complainant went to [***]Hospital with complaints of pain and inability to supine and prone left arm. Above said circumstance shows that sufficient care was not taken while inserting DCP plate. Hence we are inclined to consider the contention of the complainant."

Thus, partly allowing the complaint, the consumer court directed the treating doctor and first hospital to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the complainant.

To read the order of the commission, click on the link below.