NCDRC Directs Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital And It's Doctor To Pay ₹ 40 Lacs Compensation To A Patient

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Dr. S.M. Kantikar as the presiding member held a doctor (Opposite Part No.2) of Kokilaben Dirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Centre (Opposite Party No. 1) liable for omission and commission during the treatment of the patient. The hospital was held vicariously liable for deficiency in services. The commission directed the Hospital and the Doctor to pay a compensation of Rs. 40 Lacs in equal proportions as compensation within 6 weeks from the date of order. Beyond 6 weeks the entire amount shall carry the interest at rate of 9% per annum till its realization. The complaint was filed by the father of the patient for the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and its doctors. The in year 2004 , the patient, aged 12 went to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi for a consultation for his Kypho- scoliosis. It was diagnosed as D3-D7 intra- medullary tumour and was operated upon in the year 2004. The tumour was later reported to be non- cancerous and the parents were asked to keep a watch on it. Later the complainant was transferred to Ahmedabad and further consultation was sought at Shalvy Hospital in Ahmedabad where it was opined to undergo surgery where the Neuro-monitoring machine and facility was available. In the year 2014 the patient consulted Dr. Mihir Bapat at Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital were some investigations and a CT scan were performed. Here it was told to the patient and his parents that a correction up to 80-90%is possible. Eventually the patient was operated upon by the doctor. However when the patient regained consciousness, there was a loss of movement in his legs and loss of senses below his chest. The parents alleged that they were not informed that this condition was Paraplagia. Thereafter the patient's condition continued to worsen as he got a fever of 103 degrees and a condition of pyogenic meningitis was diagnosed. However the patient was discharged on 27.04.2014 without any urine or bowel control and hence needed an attendant for daily routines. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment, gross carelessness and deficiency in service of the OPs causing Paraplegia; the Complainants (1 & 2) filed the Consumer Compliant under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission and prayed Rs. 58,92,02,000/- as compensation from the Opposite Parties along with interest and other relief. The authorised Representative (AR) for the Opposite Parties stated that the patient had undergone a spinal surgery in 2004 after which the Tumour was left unattended. Afterwards the patient and his parents was suggested to undergo surgery at a hi-tech hospital having neuro monitoring machine such as OP-1 Hospital. He stated that the machine was used to check the status of the nerves under the supervision of a competent Neuro-physician and the Technical Assistant who have confirmed that no signal of untoward incident reported from the machine. The Consent was taken by OP-2 for the surgery on two separate Consent Forms - one by the Hospital and the other by the Orthopaedic team. The OP-2 investigated the Post-operative paraplegia and re-operated to check any fault during surgery. On perusal of consent forms and operating surgeon's prescriptions , the bench noted that the consent form lacked ingredients of informed consent. The risks of paraplegia/paralysis during the Kyphoscoliosis surgery was not mentioned or explained to the Complainants or the patient. The bench also observed that the documents on record are unsigned prescriptions which do not construe informed consent. The bench stated that There are 4 components of informed consent including decision capacity, documentation of consent, disclosure, and competency. The two well-recognized exceptions for informed consent to medical treatment that one is a medical emergency and another is rare, when by certain court-ordered treatments or tests mandated by law. In the instant case it was a planned surgery, which needs proper informed consent. The NCDRC Bench referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Dr. Laxmn B. Joshi vs Dr. Trimbak B Godbole & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128 for duty of care and Sarla Verma's Case for just compensation and held as under: "Based on the discussion above, in the ends of justice , in my view, ₹ 40 lakh shall be the just and adequate compensation be paid to the Complainants by the OP-1 hospital and the treating doctor OP-2 in equal proportion within 6 weeks from today. Beyond 6 weeks the entire amount shall carry the interest at rate of 9% per annum till its realization." Case- ROHANDEEP SINGH JASWAL V. KOKILABEN DHIRUBHAI AMBANI HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE & 12 ORS. CONSUMER CASE NO. 1173 OF 2016 Click Here To Read/Download Order

NCDRC Directs Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital And It's Doctor To Pay ₹ 40 Lacs Compensation To A Patient

Charu Singh

Tags