A Delhi hospital and two of its doctors have been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pay ₹48 lakh as compensation to a man whose wife lost her life allegedly due to medical negligence during surgery. The case revolved around the tragic death of a patient who underwent Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy for treating Asherman’s Syndrome in 2013.
The Commission concluded that the gynaecologist, Dr. Sandhya Bansal, lacked the necessary expertise to conduct the surgery, while the hospital failed to ensure proper documentation and accountability. Another doctor, Dr. Rahul Manchanda, was also held liable for unethical practices, including manipulating medical records. However, Dr. Kapoor, another medical professional involved, was exonerated due to the absence of evidence or specific allegations against him.
The patient was admitted to the hospital in 2013 for surgery to address Asherman’s Syndrome. Shortly after the procedure began, complications were reported, leading to the patient being transferred to Fortis Escorts Hospital. She succumbed to her condition shortly after arriving at the second hospital.
The husband, who lodged the complaint, alleged that negligence on the part of the hospital staff and doctors contributed to his wife’s death. He claimed that crucial aspects of the surgery, including potential risks like air embolism, were not explained beforehand. Fortis Hospital’s death summary cited acute pulmonary edema (non-cardiogenic), persistent hypoxemia, and severe mixed acidosis as the cause of death. It also noted signs of improper suctioning and the presence of blood-stained frothy secretions in the patient’s endotracheal tube upon arrival.
The Commission criticized the lack of transparency in documenting medical events. Discrepancies were highlighted in the anesthesia notes and reports. The treating hospital failed to provide contemporaneous records of diagnostic tests, monitoring equipment data, and progress notes, which could have clarified the sequence of events leading to the patient’s condition. The delay in transferring the patient to Fortis Hospital was also questioned.
The role of air embolism as a complication during hysteroscopy was examined by the Commission. While it acknowledged that such complications are possible, it was noted that negligence in managing air entry into the uterine cavity likely caused the condition to escalate. The lack of a state-of-the-art hysteroscope and inadequate measures to prevent and address air embolism were attributed to Dr. Bansal.
The hospital was held vicariously liable for failing to supervise its staff and ensure that medical documentation was accurately maintained. Allegations of manipulation and withholding of records were also substantiated. Dr. Manchanda was criticized for his unethical collaboration with Dr. Bansal in altering medical records, though Dr. Kapoor was absolved of any blame.
The Commission ordered Dr. Bansal and the hospital to pay ₹40 lakh in compensation, along with ₹1 lakh for medical expenses and funeral costs. An additional ₹5 lakh was imposed on Dr. Manchanda for his role in the case. All payments were mandated to include a 6% annual interest from the date of the complaint.
This ruling has underscored the critical need for proper skill, accountability, and transparency in medical practices, holding healthcare providers to stringent standards of care.
(Input From Various Sources)
(Rehash/Ankur Deka/MSM)