SKIMS slapped Rs 2 lakh compensation for negligence after patient's lung collapse
Compensation
Srinagar: The Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) Soura, along with the State authorities, have been ordered by a local court in Srinagar to pay compensation to a 20-year-old patient, whose lung collapsed during treatment.
The First Additional District Judge, Srinagar, Anjum Ara, ordered the institute to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation with 6 per cent interest after finding the doctors negligent in the treatment, as the chest tube, inserted inside the patient, was removed improperly by a hospital dresser on the instruction of a doctor in the cardiothoracic department.
The history of the case goes back to April 2014, when the patient approached SKIMS with a minor pneumothorax. After examining the patient, the Senior resident, Dr. Hussain recommended conservative treatment. However, the junior doctors allegedly went against his advice and inserted a chest tube. Two days later, the junior doctor, Dr. Gul, reportedly directed a hospital-dresser, Ahmad to perform the procedure as she was allegedly busy with her Smartphone.
When the dressing man was removing the chest tube, the air from the atmosphere again sneaked into the chest cavity of the patient through the hole. With air rushing into the patient's chest cavity, his lung collapsed, forcing the reinsertion of another tube.
It was observed by the Court that this act on the doctor's part was negligent, as only doctors or trained technicians are competent to handle such procedures.
Also Read: Kerala HC issues 12-point draft guidelines for medical negligence cases, details
"Dr Gul who was on duty in the C.V.T.S department did not remove the chest tube as she was busy with her Smartphone and directed a dressing man to remove the chest tube and therefore committed breach of duty and being grossly negligent on her duties and the dressing man being an incompetent person, at the time of removal of the chest tube, the air from the atmosphere again sneaked in the chest cavity through the hole," observed the Court.
"This is a case seeking damages that is based on medical negligence...The defendant no.3 (Dr Gul) failed to exercise reasonable care expected of a medical professional in the given circumstances. The treatment given was not in accordance with established medical practice," the judge mentioned in the judgment.
As per the latest media report by ETV Bharat, even when the hospital conducted its own internal inquiry, it recommended reprimanding Dr. Gul, dresser Ahmad, and senior doctor Dr Mufti for deviating from established procedures.
Following the incident, the patient remained hospitalised for nine days, and during this time, thieves allegedly broke into his Srinagar's Lal Bazar residence and fled with gold jewelry worth Rs 8 lakh. The patient's mother and brother were at the hospital during his treatment, and they testified before the Court that when they returned home, they found it ransacked.
Affidavit by Patient's mother:
In her affidavit before the Court, the patient's mother deposed that "she took her younger son to the hospital in the year 2014 for a regular checkup as he had complained of chest pain. In the hospital, she got the hospital registration slip, and she showed her son to the doctor on duty in the OPD, and the doctor directed her son to undertake a chest X-ray."
"Thereafter, they showed the chest X-Ray to the doctor, the junior doctor in the OPD discussed the case with Senior doctor. The doctor directed that her son needs to be admitted to the hospital so that he can be provided oxygen. Her younger son was in absolute perfect condition, and thereafter her younger son was admitted to the hospital through the accident and emergency ward. He told her that her son needs to be admitted only to provide him with oxygen. In the emergency, the junior doctors directed her elder son to purchase a chest tube and the chest tube was inserted in the body of her son. He was very angry with the doctors of the emergency department for having surpassed his recommendations," she further added.
Apart from this, the patient's mother also mentioned that "In the night, her son was seen by Dr. Mufti (Sr. Doctor), who also mentioned that there was no need for chest tube insertion. Thereafter, they were sent to Ward No. 5-A after 1 and 1/2 day. Doctors recommended that chest tube needs to be removed, and her elder son accompanied her younger son. She learnt that the chest tube was removed by a dresser and that it was not removed properly."
Allegedly, due to the negligence, the patient also lost a crucial academic year and failed to sit for his semester exams. Even though he later became qualified as a mechanical engineer, he submitted before the Court that his health issues now prevent him from working in noisy environments or pursuing opportunities in the defense sector.
"Thereafter, her son was discharged after having gone through prolonged unnecessary exposure to radiations, as her son was under studies and he failed to appear in his semester exam, and his precious time was lost, and her son was treated in hospital outside the state, and she incurred huge expenses on his treatment," submitted the patient's mother. Back in 2015, the patient had filed the case seeking Rs 42 lakh as compensation.
Deposition by Senior Resident:
Senior Resident of General Medicine Department of SKIMS, Dr. Hussain, deposed stating that he had examined the patient on April 18, 2014. He said, "The patient had come to him with a complaint of shortness of breath and pain on the left side of his chest. On his medical examination, he had found absence of breath sounds on the left side of his chest, which implied that either the patient was having air or fluid in his chest cavity."
"On the said day, he had seen a chest tube inserted on the left side of the chest of the said patient, but he had not seen the X-ray of the patient, therefore, insertion of the tube and considering the age of the patient which was about 20 years of age, had implied that the patient might be suffering from significant Pneumothorax i.e. presence of air in the chest cavity," he further submitted before the Court.
Court's observations:
After taking note of the submissions, the Court concluded that the defendants failed in their duty of care. "Both doctors have clearly stated in their testimonies that Dr Gul and Ahmad were negligent while discharging their duties. It is thus an established fact that the plaintiff was treated in the hospital after the senior resident examined him, and thereafter the treatment was given in gross negligence," said the order.
Even though the Court acknowledged the theft at the patient's house, it held that SKIMS could not be held liable for the loss.
Also Read: Gynaecologist suspended for negligence after pregnant woman's death
