The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a hospital and a gynaecologist-obstetrician liable for medical negligence in the death of a 43-year-old woman following complications after a tubectomy surgery and directed payment of ₹37.25 lakh, including litigation costs, to her family.
President Gudla Tanuja and Member Varri Krishna Murthy, in an order dated September 18, found deficiency in the medical services provided to the woman, who died on September 4, 2019 after developing complications following the procedure.
The Commission directed the hospital and the doctor to jointly pay ₹12 lakh to the woman’s family. The doctor was further ordered to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation for loss of life. Both were also directed to pay ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses.
Woman Developed Complications After Tubectomy
According to the complaint filed by the woman’s mother, brother and sister, she approached the hospital on August 12, 2019 for a tubectomy operation.
The family alleged that her large intestine was injured during the procedure, resulting in faecal infection, septic shock and multiple organ failure.
They claimed the treating doctor failed to identify the problem, forcing them to shift the woman to another hospital. She remained there until August 31, 2019, but was subsequently moved to a government hospital because of the cost of treatment.
After the second hospital diagnosed the problem, the family lodged an FIR against the hospital and the doctor on August 17, 2019. Despite treatment at the government hospital, the woman died on September 4.
The family claimed that they later approached the hospital and the doctor seeking reimbursement of the medical expenses but received no compensation, following which they filed the consumer complaint.
Hospital Denied Liability
Advocate O Srinivas, appearing for the hospital, challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainants were not the proper legal heirs of the deceased.
The hospital also argued that the doctor was a private medical practitioner who used its facilities whenever required for surgeries on payment. It described itself as a charitable organisation running outpatient and inpatient facilities for poor and disadvantaged patients while charging only minimum amounts required to operate the institution.
It further contended that the deceased was not its patient.
Advocate Kancharla Ravi Kumar, appearing for the doctor, submitted that the woman’s age and obesity had been taken into account and that utmost care was exercised while performing the tubectomy.
The doctor maintained that complications developed around 24 hours after the surgery and that the symptoms could have indicated kidney disease. It was also argued that an expert committee constituted by the government had found no medical negligence on the doctor’s part and that any negligence during subsequent treatment at other hospitals could not be attributed to her.
Commission Rejects Expert Committee Findings
The Commission examined the expert committee report, the discharge summary from the second hospital and the doctor’s case sheet and concluded that the woman’s death resulted from post-operative complications following the surgery performed by the doctor.
It declined to accept the expert committee’s conclusion, observing that the committee had been influenced by the doctor’s oral statements.
The Commission noted that the doctor had not placed before the committee a record showing that the woman had undergone uterus surgery seven years earlier. According to the order, the earlier surgery made her susceptible to certain complications and contributed to difficulty during the tubectomy, during which an accidental rectal injury occurred.
The Commission further referred to government guidelines produced by the hospital concerning special techniques to be followed during tubectomy procedures.
It found that the doctor caused injury to the rectum during surgery and closed the surgical wound without following the prescribed guidelines, leading to secondary post-operative complications that ultimately resulted in the woman’s death.
Hospital Cannot Escape Responsibility for Consultant Doctor
The Commission also rejected the hospital’s attempt to avoid liability on the ground that the treating doctor was an independent practitioner using its infrastructure.
It held that where a hospital was aware of government-prescribed rules, it could not permit doctors working as consultants or independent contractors to disregard them. Hospitals and nursing homes, the Commission said, could not escape responsibility merely by claiming that they had only provided infrastructure.
The Commission further found that the failure in treatment placed liability on the treating doctor and amounted to negligent and deficient medical service.
It also held that the deceased woman’s mother, brother and sister were her legal representatives and were entitled to maintain the compensation claim arising from her death.
Accordingly, the Commission directed the hospital and doctor to jointly pay ₹12 lakh to the family, ordered the doctor to separately pay ₹25 lakh for loss of life, and imposed ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
