Medical Negligence In Infant Circumcision: Malappuram Consumer Commission Awards ₹50 Lakh Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, comprising President Sri V. Ravindran and Members Smt. R. Bindu and Sri K. Muhammed Ismail, held a doctor and a private hospital liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service.

Observing that the opposite parties failed to explain the infant's severe injuries and that the hospital lacked adequate hygiene and sterilisation standards, the Commission directed them to jointly and severally pay ₹50 lakh as compensation to the complainant.

Brief facts

The complainant, Nasan Bin Noushad @ Nishan Bin Noushad, a minor represented by his mother Jameela, alleged that he was taken to K.V.M. Hospital, Malappuram, on 18 April 2018 for a circumcision procedure performed by Dr. Ashique.

According to the complainant, after the procedure, the circumcision site was completely covered with dressing, following which the child experienced difficulty in passing urine. Despite repeated visits to the hospital and assurances from the doctor that the condition would improve, the child allegedly continued to suffer persistent pain, abnormal urination, and severe infection.

The complainant further alleged that the hospital lacked adequate facilities for conducting the procedure and that the treating doctor was inexperienced, resulting in serious complications. The child was subsequently referred to multiple hospitals, where emergency surgeries were performed, including the creation of a urinary diversion through the abdomen. It was alleged that the child's penis suffered severe damage, causing permanent injury.

Alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, seeking ₹50 lakh as compensation for the injuries suffered by the minor child, along with reimbursement of medical expenses, litigation costs, and other appropriate reliefs.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties

The opposite parties denied all allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service, contending that the circumcision was performed with due care and in accordance with accepted medical standards.

They further contended that the child was timely referred to a higher centre when complications arose and that no negligence could be attributed to the doctor or the hospital. They also challenged the maintainability of the complaint and sought its dismissal.

Observation and decision

The Commission found that the complainant had established medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It observed that a healthy 23-day-old infant suffered severe complications, including extensive tissue loss, burn injury, infection and meatal stenosis, following a routine circumcision.

Relying on the Expert Medical Team's report, the Commission found serious deficiencies in the hospital's hygiene, sterilisation practices and operation theatre facilities, and drew an adverse inference against the opposite parties for failing to maintain complete medical records.

Referring to Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, it held that expert evidence is not indispensable where negligence is evident, and applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, concluded that the opposite parties were negligent.

The Commission further relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab to hold that the closure of criminal proceedings did not preclude civil liability.

Accordingly, it directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay ₹50 lakh as compensation and ₹50,000 as litigation costs within 45 days, failing which the amount would carry 9% annual interest until realization.

Case Title: Nasan Bin Noushad @ Nishan Bin Noushad Vs. Dr. Ashique & Ors

Case No.: CC/01/2020

Click here to read/download the order