• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

Doctor is not liable for negligence if he performs his duty with reasonableness and with due care: NCDRC

by Law Trend
February 11, 2021
in Court Updates, Trending Stories
5 min read
operation medical doctor
719
SHARES
2.1k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

A complaint under sec.21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Dr. Arvind Jaiswal, Dr. S. S. Kale and Dr. B.D. Choudhary. The complainants, Shrishti Puri and Dr. Someshwar Puri, daughter and father, filed the complaint after the daughter became permanently paralyzed post surgery. 

Background: 

In 2003, Shrushti (patient) was suffering from congenital spinal deformity, for which her father, Someshwar Puri, consulted Dr. Arvind Jaiswal at AIIMS. Upon examination, Jaiswal advised for urgent surgery. Accordingly, in 2005 she was operated on. After the surgery the father noticed there was no movement in Shrishti’s legs. After reporting the same to the doctors, a CT scan was performed, which informed that a screw was pressing the spinal cord and removal was necessary. 

 It was alleged that the first surgery took a long time. A C-arm was also not used as it was not functioning properly. Further, during any spinal surgery, the presence of Neurosurgeon was a must, but in the present case, the operation was performed under the supervision of Dr. Jaiswal who was just an orthopaedic surgeon. 

On the instance of the father, a neurosurgeon was called (Dr. S. S. Kale) and the second operation was done in his presence. After 10 days in the ICU, there was no improvement in the lower part of her body. She was thus discharged from AIIMS. As per the discharge summary, one screw penetrated the vertebral canal and caused perforation in the spinal cord. The spinal cord was severely damaged and the patient became paralyzed with loss of bowel and urinary control. It was due to alleged negligence from Dr. Jaiswal during both the operations. 

The patient took further 3 years of treatment in Mumbai, but her condition did not get better. Being aggrieved, the complaint was filed in 2007 claiming gross carelessness and deficiency on part of the institute and the doctors causing a complete paralysis of the lower part of the patient’s body and a compensation to the extent of Rs. 1, 08, 50, 000 was claimed along with interest and other relief. 

Arguments were heard and concluded in 2019, and an order was passed, removing Dr. B.D. Choudhary from the opposite parties. 

Written Synopsis from the Opposing Parties: 

The opposite parties denied allegations of medical negligence. Dr. Jaiswal has a rich experience in spinal deformity correction and was trained in AIIMS as well as abroad. The patient’s parents were informed in depth about the condition and also made aware of the operative risks involved, including neurological and vascular complications. The patient’s father was also a doctor and fully aware and understood the complications involved in spinal surgery. 

The father did consent to the surgery. It was performed by Dr. Jaiswal with the use of a C-arm. After the surgery, when the misplacement of the screw was found on the CT scan, emergency surgery was ordered and the screw was carefully removed without causing any damage to the spinal cord. Thus it was wrong to allege negligence. After discharge, the patient was advised to come for follow-up, however, did not return. 

Submissions before the court:

The counsel for the complainants stated that the father of the patient and his brother, both being doctors understood that if one screw was wrongly fixed and was pressing the spinal cord, damage could be caused to the sensitive area and result in no movement in the legs of the patient. 

The counsel for the opposite parties stated that it is a standard practice at AIIMS to use a C-arm during evert spinal surgery. It was also presented that studies have shown that a small percentage of screw penetration into the spinal canal may occur from the best spine surgeons worldwide and the incidence increases when the spine is deformed and crooked. As per standard neurosurgical practice, any compression of the cord removed earliest the changes are reversible. Thus, after paralysis was discovered, an immediate CT scan was performed and the second surgery was also done. A prompt explanation of misplacement of the screw was given to the relatives and the 2nd surgery was done immediately. It shows the bonafide action of the surgeon who accepted the complication and took proper steps promptly.

Postoperative scans did not show any compression. However, the spinal cord showed changes, and the patient was put on medications. After two weeks, at the time of the discharge, the patient showed paralysis of both lower limbs but her sensations had returned above the knee. The patient was advised for follow-up and rehabilitation, but the patient did not come.

Judgement:

The bench, composed of DR. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member, carefully looked at the submissions and arguments before them. 

The observed the following: 

  • The patient Ms. Shrishti Puri, was suffering from deformity in back for 2 ½ years which was progressive in nature. 
  • As for Dr. Jaiswal not being a Neurosurgeon, the bench referred to a report issued by Board of Governor of MCI, which stated that an Orthopedician may also provide spinal care including surgery to the patient. Thus, he was not in fault for not having a neurosurgeon during the surgery. 
  • The father and relatives were doctors and hence aware of the risks and that such a condition is progressive. Postoperative paralysis is a well documented complication of spinal surgery. 

The doctors had acted promptly and offered their service to their best ability. “The mode of treatment/ skill differs from doctor to doctor and the doctor is not liable for negligence if he performs his duty with reasonableness and with due care.”

The complaint was thus dismissed. They also noted that the patient was now pursuing MBBS and wished her luck. 

Click to Read/Download Judgment

Story by Sai Kulkarni- Intern

Tags: medical negilgencencdrctrend2

Related Posts

bar head partho das gupta
Court Updates

Bombay HC grants bail to former CEO of BARC Partho Dasgupta in the TRP manipulation case

March 2, 2021
hcba lawyers strike
Court Updates

HCBA Terminates Membership of a Lawyer, Who filed Case During Strike

March 2, 2021
Karnataka HC
Court Updates

72 Year Old Accuses 28 High Court Judges as Criminals: HC Directs him to take legal advice

March 2, 2021

Advertisement

POPULAR NEWS

  • Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala lawtrend

    Bombay HC Judge who gave “Skin to Skin” POCSO Verdict loses Judgeship Confirmation

    5725 shares
    Share 2290 Tweet 1431
  • Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5118 shares
    Share 2047 Tweet 1280
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4827 shares
    Share 1930 Tweet 1206
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4698 shares
    Share 1879 Tweet 1175
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3270 shares
    Share 1308 Tweet 818
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In