Unlikely 1.5 cm kidney stone formed in 3 months! Consumer court upholds Rs 1 lakh compensation against Delhi surgeon, Hospital
New Delhi: Rejecting the appeal of a surgeon accused of negligence in a kidney stone removal surgery, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld Rs 1 lakh compensation in favour of the patient.
The bench observed that the treating doctor and hospital failed to prove the successful removal of the patient's kidney stone. Relying on expert opinion, the Commission denied agreeing with the doctor's contention that a large kidney stone of 17.2 mm could recur within the span of just 3.5 months after the first surgery.
"...on a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the stone removal was carried out on 12.08.2016 and the ultra sound report dated 30.11.2016 reflects "Calculus measuring about 17.2mm is seen at right UV junction". Here, it is abysmally surprising to note that merely after 3.5 months from the date of surgery, a stone of greater dimension has grown in the same region. Though the Opposite Party has contended that the said stone has reoccurred, the Expert Opinion leaves no room for doubt that it is unlikely that a stone of such size can reoccur in a period of 3.5 months, therefore, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, we are constrained to reject the submissions of the Appellant as unworthy of reliance," observed the State Consumer Court.
The history of the case goes back to 2016, when the complainant (patient) was diagnosed with Ureteric Calculus of right side kidney and was advised for Ureter Lithotomy Surgery in GTB Hospital. However, due to the non-availability of treatment facility at GTB Hospital, he decided to approach the treating hospital. On 11.07.2016, the surgery was performed. The complainant alleged that instead of Ureter Lithotomy Surgery, the treating doctor had implanted RT DJ stenting and had informed the complainant that it was a guaranteed method of stone removal.
During follow-up, tests were conducted, and the treating doctor allegedly performed a second surgical process and discharged the complainant on the next day. Allegedly, the treating doctor had informed the patient that the second operation was necessary since the stone was a little bigger. Later, the doctor removed all the stents. However, the patient did not get any relief.
It was when he consulted another doctor and more tests, including ultrasound and KUB X Ray, were conducted, that he got to know that the stones had not been removed and it had grown in size.
It was alleged that the treating doctor claimed that the operation was successful and that the stones had been completely removed. However, the doctor had said that the stone had recurred and then asked for more money for another surgery of lithotomy RT. Later, he filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service.
On the other hand, the treating doctor and hospital denied negligence and submitted that the surgery of the patient had been satisfactorily performed. It was contended that on 03.09.2016, X-ray KUB was done which showed no evidence of ME SAL f stone, DJ stent seen in SITU. Thereafter, on 15.09.2016, the DJ stent was removed in OPD and the Complainant was sent home with no complaint from the side of patient or his relatives.
While considering the matter, the District Consumer Forum had sought expert opinion from the Medical Superintendent of Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, which had opined that the doctor had treated the patient with a standard procedure.
However, the DCDRC noted that the test conducted just after 3.5 months from the date of surgery showed that the stone of bigger size had grown in the same region. Even though the doctor and hospital had contended that the said stone had recurred, they could not prove that the stone of such size could recur in a period of 3.5 months by relying on any authentic literature or expert opinion.
Accordingly, holding the doctor and hospital deficient in service and negligent, the District Commission had directed them to pay Rs 1 lakh to the complainant, along with interest @ 6% further p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint. It also directed them to pay Rs 15,000 as the cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by the order, the doctor and hospital approached the State Consumer Court and argued that the DIstrict Commission ignored medical evidence showing that residual fragments and stone recurrence are common, ocurring in up to 38% of cases. It was argued that a failed treatment did not automatically equate to professional negligence.
While considering the matter, the SCDRC perused the expert opinion dated 01.07.2019 by the doctors at GTB hospital, who noted, "The complainant got another ultrasound 3 months after URSL, which shows a stone in lower part of ureter of same side... If the X-ray and Ultrasound both are correct, then it may be a case of recurrent stone. However, it is unlikely that a 1.5cm stone will form in 3 months."
At this outset, the State Consumer Court observed, "A perusal of the aforesaid opinion makes it clear that the Expert Committee had opined that it is unlikely that a 1.5cm stone will form in 3 months. The Committee had further opined that no other document was made available to corroborate the last Ultrasound report provided in file."
The consumer court referred to the Supreme Court's order in the case of Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq, where the Apex Court had observed that the courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists.
Accordingly, the SCDRC observed,
"A perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that expert opinion plays a crucial role in adjudication of medical negligence cases as Consumer Commissions are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. A perusal of the record divulges that the committee did not find discharge record or OT notes of the URSL describing the operative findings. It was further noticed that the patient name on the X-ray report is slightly different from the complainant's name and that no other document was made available to corroborate the last Ultrasound report provided in file. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, the Committee finally opined that it is unlikely that a 1.5cm stone will form in 3 months."
With this observation, the State Consumer Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Rs 1 lakh compensation slapped on the treating doctor and hospital.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/27/delhi-scdrc-344073.pdf
