Kerala: The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has ordered ₹6 lakh in compensation for a medical negligence case to the children of a woman who lost her life after an ovarian cyst surgery in 2007.
President A P Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya headed a bench that heard an appeal filed by a doctor and a nursing home. The appeal challenges a Kerala State Consumer Commission ruling that found them liable for medical negligence following a woman's death from alleged post-surgical complications.
The commission said that the doctor was already informed of the woman’s past medical history. She had undergone two abdominal surgeries.
According to reports by Indian Express, the NCDRC commented on a deficiency on the part of the doctor who was treating the woman and the associated nursing home.
“Could not have been oblivious to the very likelihood of such accidental occurrence and consequent complications” like that of “a ureter injury, likely urine or abscess fluid collection and the likely consequent infection,” said the NCDRC.
The children stated that on April 11, 2007, their mother went to a gynecologist with the complaint of mild abdominal pain. There, she was asked to get an ultrasound scan done, which revealed a small cyst on her right ovary.
According to the reports, the children alleged that the doctor misinterpreted the reports and made the condition sound more serious, and an urgent surgery was advised.
The surgery was scheduled for May 3, 2007, but was done on May 2, 2007 instead.
According to the children, the surgery was done in a very unprofessional medical environment. The nursing home was highly negligent during the surgery, as the specialists required for the surgery were not even present.
The woman developed severe abdominal pain with persistent vomiting and other complications, after her surgery.
It was also stated that the woman did not receive adequate post operative care and was discharged from the nursing home on May 9, 2007, despite her deteriorating health condition. On May 14, 2007, she was brought to the nursing home again.
On May 17, 2007, her diagnostic scans revealed damage to the ureter. She was shifted to another hospital because her health condition became more critical, another surgery was performed at the second hospital.
On June 2, 2007, she was shifted to a third hospital because of her deteriorating health condition. She died on June 6, 2007, in the same hospital due to Septicemia ( Blood Poisoning).
The doctor and the nursing home were initially ordered to pay a compensation of 3.75 lakh and held guilty of medical negligence in the case after the children filed an FIR in the Kerala state consumer commission on May 19, 2012.
The doctor and the nursing home then appealed the initial ruling in the NCDRC.
According to the reports, Advocates S Prakash and N G Mahesh, who were representing the doctor and the nursing home, said that the doctor chose a surgical treatment that was appropriate for Cyst and chronic abdominal pain.
They said that the woman died due to post-surgery complications that are a “recognised medical complication" in patients like her, and could not be stated as medical negligence.
The counsel accepted that the treatment provided to the woman was up to medical standards, and also added that the children were unable to bring stronger proof of medical negligence on the part of the doctor and the nursing home.
Advocate Rajan P Kaliyath, who is representing the children, said that the compensation is palpably low and the court must consider enhancement of the compensation amount.
According to the reports, the NCDRC said,
“Our finding of deficiency is limited to doctor’s exhibition and application of requisite medical and experiential knowledge, anticipation, skill, care and management of the patient, particularly of positively being aware of the need for urologist consultation and speedier investigations to positively rule out the ureter injury and leak, (which the literature shows to be a likely accident during ovarian surgery), during her re-admission.”
The National Commission ruled that while the doctor could not be held directly liable for the woman’s death, both the doctor and the nursing home still played an undeniable role in the outcome.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)