 in Jhargram, presided by Shyam Sundar Chattopadhyay and Anjali Chaturvedi, found a surgeon guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service){kind=link}
In a recent decision, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Jhargram, presided by Shyam Sundar Chattopadhyay and Anjali Chaturvedi, found a surgeon guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The case revolved around the delayed performance of a laparotomy on a patient based on a two-day-old CT scan report, which ultimately resulted in the rupturing of a liver abscess. The Commission directed the surgeon to pay a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Background of the Case
On July 15, 2020, the complainant’s son developed a fever and abdominal pain. After undergoing tests, including a CT scan on August 4, 2020, which revealed a probable liver abscess, the patient was referred to the surgeon (1st Opposite Party – OP). A high-risk consent for drainage of the liver abscess was obtained from the patient’s sister on August 5, 2020. The surgery was performed on August 6, after a delay of nearly 27 hours.
On August 7, 2020, the patient developed complications and was referred to the Indian Institute of Liver and Digestive Sciences (IILDS). Upon further examination, the IILDS found that no proper operating theater (OT) note had been provided, which highlighted additional deficiencies in the care provided.
Complainant’s Allegations
The complainant accused the surgeon of medical negligence by delaying the laparotomy and relying on an old CT scan report. Furthermore, the surgeon performed the surgery despite lacking the necessary infrastructure and expertise. It was also argued that the surgeon abandoned the patient in an unsafe condition and referred him to IILDS without a proper OT note.
Défense by the Surgeon
The surgeon contended that the surgery was performed after obtaining high-risk consent and the abscess rupture was only discovered after opening the abdomen. Additionally, the surgeon argued that the CT scan did not reveal the rupture beforehand and questioned the complainant’s decision to exclude the Jhargram Nursing Home, where the surgery took place, as a necessary party in the complaint.
Commission’s Assessment of Jurisdiction and Locus Standi
The DCDRC established its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter. The Commission also addressed the complainant’s right to file the complaint, stating that the hospital bills provided sufficient proof that the surgery was paid for, despite the complainant not directly paying the surgeon. Although there were doubts about the complainant’s locus standi, the Commission proceeded in the absence of contrary evidence.
Non-Inclusion of the Nursing Home
Regarding the exclusion of the Jhargram Nursing Home as a party, the DCDRC referred to Order 1 Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and relevant Supreme Court precedents on necessary parties. It concluded that the exclusion of the nursing home did not defeat the complaint, as the doctor’s liability was direct and the hospital’s involvement was not essential for the claim to succeed.
Deficiency in Service and Medical Negligence
The DCDRC found that the surgeon’s reliance on a two-day-old CT scan report and the delay in performing the laparotomy amounted to medical negligence. The Commission highlighted the importance of timely intervention in cases of liver abscess, emphasizing that the delay contributed to the rupture of the abscess, which could have been prevented with a more prompt procedure.
The Commission also rejected the surgeon’s argument regarding the high-risk consent obtained from the patient’s sister. It noted that proxy consent is not a valid defense in cases of medical negligence, especially when the patient’s condition does not warrant emergency surgery requiring such consent.
The DCDRC concluded that the surgeon’s actions, including the unjustified delay and failure to provide an OT note, constituted medical negligence and a deficiency in service. It ordered the surgeon to pay Rs. 4 lakhs in compensation to the complainant. However, the Commission also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the complainant for unnecessarily impleading the anesthetist, who was found to be uninvolved in the negligence.
Case details : Ahin Kumar Rout v. Dr. Sirshendu Giri, CC/3/2021, decided on 27-9-2023.