- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
NO Surgery can claim 100 percent Recovery: National Commission
"No Surgery can claim 100% recovery"...,
"In order to recover, the patient is expected to comply with the advice of the doctor"..
Above were the two important takeaways from a recent judgment made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench consisting of Justice Ajit Bharoake and Anup K Thakur in a revision petition of a case alleging medical negligence.
Case Details :
BALJIT SINGH V/.s KUMAR HOSPITAL & ANR., Punjab,
REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2016, decided on 07 Mar 2017
Facts in nutshell :
1. The Petitioner - Complainant met with an accident and sustained fracture on his right arm. In the Opponent hospital, the Complainant underwent an operation and the Doctor and set the bone and fixed it with screw and plates.
2. After the Post-Op Xray, plates and screws were found to be in place.
3. According to the Complainant, even after the surgery, he had pains in his arms and the operation was not successful and hence he filed the consumer complaint before District Forum , which was allowed directing thereby the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for loosening of implant. The order of District Forum was set aside by State commission holding that the Complainant failed to prove the Negligence.. Hence the Revision.
Held :
1. The National commission dismissed the Petition and absolved the Doctors from the charged of Negligence.
2. It placed the reliance on the Expert committee report, wherein it was mentioned that the screws along with the plate had already been fixed. However, plates and screws were found to have loosened.
3. it was opined that such loosening of screws might occur due to various reasons viz. accident, failure to follow advice of doctors. The Expert Doctor also opined that no surgery can claim 100% recovery and that loosening of implant by fall cannot be ruled out and the patient must follow the advice of Doctors to recover.
4. On this background, it was held that after the surgery, x-ray was done which showed sufficient fixation of the implant. If the screws or the plates have loosened for some reason after surgery, the doctor who conducted the surgery cannot be blamed.
Good judgment in favour of Doctors. Again, proper documentation, proper treatment saved the Doctors..I may reiterate the fact that you cannot stop anyone from filing the Case.. But the final judgment may be different.. So following the standard procedure and constant counseling of patient may turn to be stitches in time....
Thanks and Regard,
Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune. ©
You may see the following link for the detailed judgement