Medical Negligence - NCDRC Directs Krishna Institute Of Medical Science (KIMS) To Pay Enhanced Compensation

The NCDRC bench comprising of Dr. S.M. Kantikar as the presiding member directed the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. and three doctors to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 Lacs for medical negligence. The bench was hearing two appeals. One of those was filed by the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. and three doctors against the order of the state commission which allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with costs of Rs. 5000/-. The other appeal was filed by the complainant B.G Sreedevi and Ors for enhancement of compensation. The complainant No.1, B.G. Sreedevi's Husband was a qualified dental surgeon. He met with a car accident and sustained injuries. Immediately he was taken to the government general hospital at Kurnool. Later a knee surgery was performed for fracture of right superior pole of patella and he was complaining of headache and vomiting. After a CT Scan at Shantiniketan Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd in Kurnool a haemorrhagic contusion in the left posterior-temporal lobe with minimal edema was revealed. The patient had continuous vomiting and wes shifted to Krishna institute of Medical Sciences for further treatment. At the said institution no CT Angiogram was performed to rule out bleeding and was treated by neurologists for two days. Later the patient was discharged despite complaining of headache and vomiting. Thereafter, on 28.01.2010 in the late night he fell down and vomited. He was also complaining of shivering and severe headache, therefore, he was immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and admitted under Dr. W. Seetharam, but subsequently, in the early morning on 29.01.2010 the patient became comatose. The patient shifted to OP-1 KIMS Hospital by Ventilator ambulance at 10 a.m. on 29.01.2010. There at 2 p.m., CT cerebral angiogram was performed. It revealed progressive bleed and large hematoma in the brain. The patient expired subsequently on 31.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the gross negligence causing the death of the patient, his wife and children filed the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission against the Opposite parties and prayed compensation for Rs. 90,00,000/- from the OPs jointly and severally. The opposite parties stated that the Complaint was barred by limitation. It was stated that the OPs had no knowledge of the alleged accident and the treatment taken at Kurnool. The patient was brought to the OP hospital on 12.12.2009. He was in conscious state, no ENT bleed, or seizures. On examination, his vital parameters were normal. The cardiovascular respiratory, abdominal, and neurological systems were normal. The CT scan done at Kurnool showed small size of bleed and neurologically, the patient was stable except for headache. He was managed medically with analgesics and anti-edema medicines. The headache got reduced and he was discharged on 14.12.2009 with advice to come again after two weeks for follow-up. Further they also contended that the wife of the complainant did not disclose the compensation received under Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). Based on the averments and evidence of the paties the state commission partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with costs of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved, the OPs Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. & its 3 Doctors filed First Appeal for dismissal of Complaint and the First Appeal was filed by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation. On perusal of the evidence, medical record and medical literature on neurology and neurosurgery the bench noted that the discharge summary of KIMS is silent about the finding of Subarachnoid haemorrhage. The doctors at the hospital treated the patient symptomatically but failed to do proper clinical assessment and crucial investigations. It was also noted that the patient himself was a doctor and was taken to the said institution for better tertiary care. The expected duty of care at the tertiary care hospital is more. It was the duty of treating doctors to rule out the cause of Subarachnoid haemorrhage due to aneurysm. But in the instant case, the patient was discharged within short period of 2 days, it was a failure of duty of care. On the contention that the wife did not disclose the compensation received under MACT, the bench noted that the compensation under MACT is separate from that awarded under the Consumer Protection Act for medical negligence. The bench referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjyot Ahluwalia for medical negligence . it was observed that this was not a case of error of judgement but a failure of duty of ordinary care and relied on the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and the case of Arun Kumar Manglik V Chirayu Health and Medicare Private Limited...

Medical Negligence - NCDRC Directs Krishna Institute Of Medical Science (KIMS) To Pay Enhanced Compensation

Charu Singh

Tags