Surgery not required on Grade I spondylolisthesis patient- Consumer court slaps Rs 50 lakh compensation on Hyderabad hospital, spine surgeon
Medical Negligence
Hyderabad: Holding a private hospital and a spine surgeon guilty of medical negligence while operating on a patient, who became permanently disabled following a spinal surgery, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-2 in Hyderabad has directed them to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to the patient jointly.
"In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part by directing the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to: 1. Pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) towards compensation for causing physical trauma, mental agony and financial loss caused to the Complainant for her entire life and also to her family members. 2. Pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards costs of the Complaint," ordered the Commission.
The history of the case dates back to 2019, when the patient had been diagnosed with L.5-S1Grade I Listhesis. She got admitted to the hospital, and on the next day, the consultant surgeon performed Spine Surgery L5-S1 Stabilisation, Spine, TLIF upon the Complainant.
It was alleged that even though she was informed that surgery was the only option and assured that she would be alright, after the surgery, she was discharged, even though she was unable to walk and stand.
According to the complaint, after the surgery, the patient had been under the treatment and supervision of the treating surgeon for 7 continuous months. However, subsequently, the complainant felt that the doctor was not interested in rendering medical advice and instead advised her to consult another doctor.
The patient alleged that after surgery, she had been continuously suffering from post-operative major complications. It was claimed she started suffering from severe low backache and pain that radiated through whole body. She also had numbness, along with constant fever and urine infection.
The complainant contended that while previously she had been earning around Rs 70,000 per month, after the surgery she became completely dependent on her family, unable to perform even daily activities.
On the other hand, the hospital and doctor denied negligence on their part. They submitted that the patient and their attendants were informed about the surgical procedure and the possible risks and complications associated with the same, such as neurological deficits, cerebrospinal fluid leak, infection, intra-operative bleeding, anesthetic complications and need for prolonged ICU stay.
Informed written consent was taken about the same, and video counselling was done. It was clearly explained to the patient's husband about the grave risk associated with the surgery, as the Patient was suffering from hypothyroidism. They submitted that only after obtaining the consent for the surgery, the complainant/patient was taken up for surgery.
The hospital and surgeon submitted that the intra-operative findings showed hypertrophied facet joints and lysis (breakage) of the pars on both sides. L4-S1 stabilization and L5-S1 TLIF with local bone graft were done. None of the said complications was encountered during the procedure. Patient's husband was counselled about the intraoperative procedure and was informed that the patient had tolerated the procedure well, and immediate post-operative period was uneventful and Patient was shifted to ICU. The surgeon also submitted how he provided post-operative consultation and care during his visits to Agartala and via phone.
While considering the matter, the Consumer Court observed that it was an admitted fact that the MRI final impression clearly showed that "Loss of lumbar lordosis with degenerative disc disease, a mildly reduced LS-S1 dis height as described. Grade -I spondylolisthesis L5 over S1(4mm)."
Further referring to the medical examination reports, prescriptions etc., the Commission noted that the problems of the Complainant were clearly mentioned as per MRI report “L5 S1 Grade - I Listhesis”.
The Commission also took note of the finding by the National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta and AGMC & G.B.Pant Hospital, Agartala, mentioning that "Bone scan suggestive of increased concentration of traces suggestive of increased concentration of tracer seen in the aforesaid areas, which is suggestive of degenerative charges."
Further, the consumer court noted that the National Institute of Medical Health and Neuro Sciences mentioned its findings stating, "Post operative defect seen in the posterior element of L5 vertebra. Metallic fixators are seen in L4, L5 & S1 vertebra. IV discal calcification seen in L5-S1 level."
The Commission observed that the complainant also visited St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore and got DXA Bone Densitometry report done and as per the Patient Case Sheet dated 31.01.2022, the complainant had been diagnosed as a case of "Failure Back Syndrome". Further, the patient's case had also been termed as "Grade-I Stage". Therefore, surgery was not at all required.
Relying on Meyerding's classification of spondylolisthesis, the Commission observed, "As per the experts opinion for grades 1 and 2 no need of the surgery. It will be managed by other conservative non-surgical methods of treatment instead of straight away heading for spine surgery."
Noting that the complainant was an earning woman, the District Consumer Court further observed, "After the surgery she had been in rest for 3 months, thereafter on 20.08.2019 she had joined to her duties. But with great difficulty she could attend few days only. Thereafter again she had to dis continue her work as she had to sit constantly for 5 to 6 hours. Moreover, the Complainant being a lady she had look after the all house related works. But after the surgery she had unable to conduct the works and became totally dependent on others completely. But, after the surgery she became dependent on two maids and also she became as a dependent financially on husband who is a school teacher."
Observing that the surgery was not required and further noting that after the surgery, the patient became bedridden, the Consumer Court held the treating hospital and surgeon guilty of medical negligence. It held,
"Based on the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case we are considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 (hospital and surgeon) for conducting the wrong surgery to the patient who was suffering with Grade-1 spondylolisthesis L5-S1. As per other treating doctors and medical literature that surgery was not required for Grade -I and Grade II patients. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have not adopted and suggested conservative non-surgical method of treatment for the Complainant. Moreover, they have not conducted MRI test to the Complainant before conducting the major surgery. The act of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 clearly establishes deficiency in service on the part them. Due to negligence and deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 the Complainant had became bedridden her entire life and also dependent on others her entire life physically and financially."
Accordingly, the Commission directed them to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to the patient and ordered, "Hence, we are allowing the Complaint in part and directing the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs) for causing mental agony, physical trauma and financial loss caused to the Complainant and to her family members life time and also directing to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) towards costs of the Complaint to the Complainant. Complaint against opposite parties No.3 and 4 is dismissed."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/05/dcdrc-rs-50-l-compensation-345602.pdf
