- Home
- MedBound Hub
- InternshipInternship
- BiographyBiography
- InterviewInterview
- Medicine
- Pharmacy
- Physical Therapy
- Biotechnology
- College/InstituteCollege/Institute
- Dentistry
- Blog
- Wellness & Nutrition
- Nursing
- Opinion
- Videos
The 22 year wait for justice had a positive outcome as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission validated the remuneration of 4.4 lakh rupees to the husband of the 26 year old who passed away due to septicemia and shock following gallbladder surgery.
Septicemia/Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an unregulated response of a host. Septic shock is its most severe form. It is manifested by a drop in blood pressure, which decreases tissue perfusion pressure, causing hypoxia that is characteristic of shock. [1]
The event concerning the case occurred in 2003 as the woman underwent gallbladder removal surgery in a hospital in Kanpur. The individual who was diagnosed with a stone in gallbladder endured two surgeries following which she was admitted to another hospital where she lost her life. The first surgery which was conducted on 20/02/2003 resulted in septicemia which worsened her health condition.
The complainant (Patient's husband) alleged that there was no basic surgery facility in the hospital and that it was the negligence of the doctor and the healthcare professionals that costed her life. The operation which should have been done in an proper hygienic operation theatre was conducted in an ordinary hospital room in the absence of a qualified anesthesiologist, according to the complainant. Moreover, the complainants claimed that it was the negligence of the doctor as well as the hospital that aggravated the issue.
After evaluating the post-mortem report submitted by the concerned professionals, the Consumer Court backed the claim of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Court that it was a case of medical negligence, and both septicemia and shock resulted in her death.
Even though both the hospital and the professionals denied the allegations and approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCRDC) challenging the decision of State Consumer Court, it was of no use. The commission pointed out that during the second surgery, the patient went into coma and Dr. Singh who conducted the operation ran away following which she was shifted to another hospital where she passed away on 22/04/2003. [2]
Both District Forum and State Commission after discussing entire evidence on record concurrently held that septicemia was developed as the opposite parties had not taken proper care after first surgery. [2]
The NCRDC decision relied on supreme court orders concerning the cases of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Limited, (2016) 8 SCC 286 and Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, (2019) 6 SCC 424. [2]
The whole case is an eyeopener regarding the truth of the Indian healthcare system and how medical negligence is one of the major issues left unaddressed. The NCRDC decision to uphold the compensation imposed by the State Consumer Court should be appreciated.
References
1. Srzić, Ivana. “Sepsis Definition: What’s New in the Treatment Guidelines.” Acta Clinica Croatica, January 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2022.61.s1.11. (Accessed on February 10, 2025)
2. Casemine. "Case Judgment." Accessed February 5, 2025. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67359dd80a0ff50caa8dd048.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Jithin Paul/MSM)
