Kidney Stone Not Properly Treated: Delhi State Commission Upholds ₹1 Lakh Compensation For Medical Negligence
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) has dismissed an appeal filed by a surgeon and a hospital, upholding the finding of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission held that Dr. Rajnish Sharma and K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital failed to prove successful removal of the complainant's kidney stone, and rejected their contention that a large kidney stone (17.2 mm) could reoccur within just 3.5 months of surgery, particularly when expert opinion deemed such rapid recurrence “unlikely”.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Mohd. Sameer, was diagnosed with a right-side ureteric kidney stone in April 2016 and was advised to undergo surgery. Due to non-availability of treatment at a government hospital, he approached Dr. Rajnish Sharma at K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital, where he paid ₹32,000 and underwent a procedure on 11 July 2016.
Instead of the advised open surgery, the doctor performed DJ stenting and assured that it would remove the stone. The complainant was later readmitted in August 2016 and underwent a second procedure after being informed that the stone was larger. Despite removal of the stent, the complainant continued to suffer pain and did not experience relief.
Upon consulting another doctor and undergoing fresh diagnostic tests, it was revealed that the stone had not been removed and had increased in size. When he approached the opposite parties again, they claimed that the earlier surgery had been successful and that the stone had reoccurred, and demanded further payment for another procedure.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. The District Commission allowed the complaint and awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation along with ₹15,000 as litigation costs.
Challenging this order, the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission.
Contentions
The opposite parties contended that the procedure adopted was in accordance with standard medical practice and that recurrence of kidney stones is common. They argued that a failed treatment does not ipso facto amount to negligence and that the District Commission failed to properly appreciate the expert medical opinion.
Observations & Decision
The Commission noted that the expert medical opinion acknowledged that the procedure adopted by the opposite parties was a standard medical practice. However, it also highlighted serious deficiencies in the evidence produced by them.
It observed that the opposite parties failed to produce proper operative records, including OT notes describing the procedure and findings. The Commission further found that the X-ray report relied upon by the opposite parties was not proved and remained uncorroborated, with discrepancies in patient details.
Further, relying on expert opinion, the Commission observed that it was unlikely for a stone measuring around 1.5–1.7 cm to reoccur within a span of 3 to 3.5 months. In the absence of any convincing evidence supporting the theory of recurrence, the Commission rejected the defence of the opposite parties .
Accordingly, the Commission held that the opposite parties failed to establish that the stone had been successfully removed and upheld the finding of medical negligence and deficiency in service.
The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Commission awarding compensation and litigation costs was affirmed.
Case Details
Case No.: FA/166/2023
Case Title: Dr. Rajnish Sharma & Anr. v. Mohd. Sameer