Significant Disability Caused Due To Medical Treatment: NCDRC Holds GNRC Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and AVM J. Rajendra, Member has held GNRC Medical Hospital, Guwahati liable for medical negligence and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs to the complainant. Brief facts: The complainant met with an accident in Arunachal Pradesh and was rushed to General Hospital in Naharlagun for his initial treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to GNRC Medical Hospital (“Opposite Party”) in Guwahati and was treated there. He was discharged with a tracheostomy tube in place. On returning home, he faced severe discomfort including extreme coughing and expulsion of food through the tracheostomy tube. His condition deteriorated due to significant damage to his vocal organs pursuant to which he was rushed to a nearby hospital. The attending physician referred him to CMC Vellore for advanced care. On commencement of procedures, it was revealed that the surgical intervention performed at GNRC hospital had resulted in severing of both the food pipe and the windpipe which led to permanent damage to the complainant's vocal organs. The complainant underwent two tracheostomy procedures while at GNRC hospital. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint with the NCDRC praying for appropriate compensation. Submissions of the complainant: The complainant highlighted the unfair trade practices and significant lapses on the part of the Opposite Party. It was submitted that despite a lack of significant improvement, he was detained in the hospital which led to escalation of medical expenses. It was contended that the complainant was put in a super-speciality hospital for an excessive period without receiving any ENT consultation to restore his voice. The postoperative pain and complications suffered by the complainant were on account of lack of improper care and monitoring by the opposite party. It was further argued that no neurosurgical specialist evaluated the complainant for six days despite serious injuries in the head which constitutes 'deficiency of service'. The complainant cited the Medical standards which indicate that prolonged intubation beyond 10 days can pose a risk to the windpipe thus necessitating tracheostomy. Based on this medical standard, it was argued that there was a failure to perform tracheostomy after 10 days to intubation which constitutes another serious 'deficiency in service'. Poor documentation on the part of the Opposite Party was also highlighted by the complainant which constituted negligence and unfair trade practice. It was argued that consent forms for tracheostomy procedures lacked necessary doctor's identification and no formal surgical records were maintained for either of the two tracheostomy operations. The complainant argued that an informed consent was not taken for the operations and the consent forms were also not signed by the doctors. Thus, the complainant demanded compensation of Rs. 12,40,19,000. Submissions of the Opposite Party: The allegations of medical negligence were specifically denied by the Opposite Party. It was contended that there is no specific timeframe prescribed in standard medical literature for when to perform tracheostomy. It was further argued that there were three neurosurgeons who daily took rounds and monitored the complainant. Independent expert opinion was relied upon by the hospital to argue that both vocal cords of the complainant were symmetrical and approximating well. With respect to the documentation practice, it was submitted that a similar practice is followed at AIIMS. It was argued that the complainant's condition had worsened due to delay in reporting to CMC Vellore and therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable for the same. On the issue of consent, it was asserted that all procedures were explained to the attendants of the patient and an informed consent was taken. Observations of the Commission: The bench observed that despite the complainant's airway being found normal in a CT scan dated 12.07.2013, an accidental extubation occurred on 11.07.2013, which is a serious lapse suggesting lack of ICU supervision. It was observed that the doctor who treated the complainant did not have any signatures in the complainant's clinical notes. It was further observed that when the complainant was rushed to CMC, Vellore, it was confirmed that the trachea and oesophagus were surgically compromised during the second tracheostomy performed at the Opposite Party GNRC Hospital. Most of the medical records from the Opposite Party hospital lacked names, qualifications, and registration numbers of the doctors. The name of the referring or operating surgeon was never recorded which violated the Medical Council of India regulations. On the issue of informed consent, the bench observed that every operation carries with it a wide range of risks...

Significant Disability Caused Due To Medical Treatment: NCDRC Holds GNRC Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags