Delhi State Consumer Commission Affirms Medical Negligence Finding Against K.K. Surgical Hospital Over Failed Kidney Stone Removal
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) has upheld the District Commission's finding holding K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service for failing to remove the complainant's kidney stone despite conducting two surgical procedures. The Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the hospital and the treating doctor.
Brief Facts
The Complainant, Mohd. Sameer, was diagnosed with a right-sided ureteric calculus on 10.04.2016 and was initially advised to undergo open ureter lithotomy surgery at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. However, due to the unavailability of a surgeon, he sought treatment at K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital (Opposite Party No.2). He was admitted on 11.07.2016 after paying Rs. 32,000/-, where Dr. Rajnish Sharma (Opposite Party No.1) performed an endoscopic procedure (RT URS) with DJ stenting instead of the advised open surgery, assuring the Complainant that it was a guaranteed method for stone removal.
On 12.08.2016, the Complainant revisited the hospital for a follow-up examination. After conducting another KUB X-ray, Opposite Party No.1 informed him that the stone was larger than expected and that a second surgical procedure was necessary. The Complainant was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 3,500/- and was readmitted. A second procedure was thereafter performed, and he was discharged the next day.
Despite the subsequent removal of the stents, the Complainant continued to suffer severe pain and experienced no relief. He then consulted another doctor, and an ultrasound conducted on 30.11.2016 revealed the presence of a 17.2 mm calculus at the right UV junction, indicating that a large stone was still present in the same region barely three and a half months after the surgery.
An expert committee constituted at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital examined the medical records and noted the absence of Operation Theatre notes detailing the operative findings. The committee further opined that it was highly improbable for a 1.5 cm to 17.2 mm stone to newly form within a span of merely three months.
Aggrieved by the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation and litigation costs. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Parties preferred an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Arguments of the Opposite Parties
The Opposite Parties contended that the treatment administered was in accordance with standard medical practice and that recurrence of stones and residual fragments is a recognised complication in urological procedures. They argued that unsuccessful treatment by itself cannot amount to medical negligence and further submitted that the District Commission selectively relied upon the Expert Committee's report while ignoring findings validating the procedure adopted by them.
Findings
The Commission observed that although the Opposite Parties had produced an X-ray report to show that the stone had been completely removed, the patient's name mentioned in the report differed slightly from the complainant's name. The Commission further noted that no additional documents had been produced to corroborate the report and upheld the District Commission's finding holding the Opposite Parties guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service.
The Commission placed reliance on the expert medical opinion, which recorded the absence of discharge summaries and OT notes explaining the operative findings or the exact procedure performed. The expert committee had also opined that it was highly unlikely for a stone of such size to newly form or reoccur within a period of merely three months
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Commission reiterated that expert medical opinion plays a crucial role in adjudicating medical negligence disputes since Consumer Commissions are not experts in medical science.
The Commission held that the appellants failed to rebut the expert opinion that a stone of such size was unlikely to reoccur within 3.5 months. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Case Title: Dr. Rajnish Sharma & Anr. v. Mohd. SameerCase No.: FA No. 166/2023