Medical Negligence; Treatment Not Successful, Doctor Cannot Always Be Blamed, NCDRC.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R. K. Agrawal as President and Dr. S. M. Kantikar as Member disposed of an appeal that arose out of a consumer complaint filed by an individual(complainant) accusing his doctor (Opposite Party No.1) and the hospital (Opposite Party No. 2) of medical negligence. The complainant first served a legal notice to the opposite parties and demanded a compensation of $100,000, but it was of no avail, so he filed original complaint before the NCDRC and prayed for a compensation of 8,46,79,000/- INR. The main allegation that was raised by the complainant was that there was medical negligence on part of the opposite parties by way of wrong medical advice which led the complainant to suffer permanent and irreversible damage in his left eye. The complainant consulted the doctor (Opposite Party No. 1) as he suffered "Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment" which caused blurring of vision in his left eye with dark peripheral vision. He was made to undergo a surgery, and on completion of the same, a gas bubble was injected by the doctor in his left eye to press the retina tightly against the eye wall. It was alleged that the doctor gave the complainant a "fit to fly" prescription after 2 weeks of the surgery even after fully knowing about the complications associated with air travel. On his flight to San Francisco, the complainant suffered severe unbearable pain in his left eye and was unable to see from left eye. According to the complainant's doctors in the US, due to flight journey, there was expansion of the gas bubble leading to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and caused central retinal artery occlusion. He went on to develop a glaucoma in his left eye, and thus he resorted to filing a consumer complaint. The main contentment that was raised by the opposite parties was that the doctor did not out rightly give a prescription saying that the complainant was "fit to fly". The doctor did not allow the Complainant to fly to Kathmandu Nepal when he sought permission to fly on 16/02/2012. He had advised the complainant to see a retina specialist 10 days from 29/12/2012 and deemed that he would be fit to fly then considering that he was otherwise doing well, and his retina was attached. It was also alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant had concealed the details of his previous treatment. The NCDRC bench sought for the opinion of the AIIMS medical board and the two main points to be noted in the report prepared by the board is that: The surgeon was conscious about restrictions to travel by air after such operation, and already once he declined the patient to fly to Kathmandu on 16/02/2012. The development of chronic glaucoma due to events that previously occurred is highly unlikely as the patient had well controlled IOP (intraocular pressure) for a long period after the event. However, the patient has a propensity for glaucoma as has been seen in the other eye The doctor had admitted the act of negligence and agreed to pay compensation to the Complainant via email, and subsequently the complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties. The NCDRC bench opined that mere emails do not extend the limitation/cause of action and thus, in the present matter, it was not a continuous cause of action. The bench also allowed the contentment raised by the opposite parties that the Complainant's prayer for compensation appears to be imaginary and unjustified. The NCDRC bench relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that "in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent". A medical practitioner is not to be held liable each time things go wrong due to some mischance or error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment over the other. The complaint was finally dismissed on the grounds that the doctor had adhered to standard practice and shown reasonable duty of care.Case Title: DR. DEBDAS BISWAS vs DR. SOURAV SINHA & ANR.Case No. CONSUMER CASE NO. 956 OF 2015 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Medical Negligence; Treatment Not Successful, Doctor Cannot Always Be Blamed, NCDRC.

Parvathy Roy

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Medical Negligence; Treatment Not Successful, Doctor Cannot Always Be Blamed, NCDRC.

Parvathy Roy

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers