The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Life Line Nursing Home & Polyclinic vs. Mohd Nasim (Revision Petition No. 1171 of 2022). The case centered around allegations of medical negligence leading to the death of Jibabesha Begum, the mother of the complainant, Mohd Nasim, following gallbladder surgery at Life Line Nursing Home in June 2008. The complainant alleged that his motherโs death resulted from negligence by the attending doctors, including Dr. Sandip Kumar Ghosh and Dr. Arunima Chowdhury, who were responsible for her treatment.
Key Facts:
Jibabesha Begum was admitted to Life Line Nursing Home on June 10, 2008, for gallbladder surgery on the advice of Dr. Sandip Kumar Ghosh. The surgery was performed later that day, with Dr. Ghosh as the lead surgeon and Dr. Arunima Chowdhury serving as the anesthetist. Tragically, Begum passed away the following day. The complainant contended that her death was due to medical negligence, particularly pointing to the alleged failure in anesthesia reversal and the breaking of five of her teeth during the procedure. The family also accused the nursing home of attempting to deceive them by moving the deceased to the ICU posthumously and filing false criminal charges against them.
Legal Proceedings:
The complainant initially filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint on January 22, 2019, citing insufficient evidence of negligence. However, upon appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, overturned this decision on June 1, 2022, and awarded the complainant Rs. 7 lakh in compensation along with Rs. 50,000 for litigation costs. The State Commission found that the doctors involved were negligent and recommended disciplinary action against Dr. Arunima Chowdhury, including a three-year suspension of her medical license.
Judgment and Observations by NCDRC:
The NCDRC, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), heard the revision petition filed by Life Line Nursing Home and the attending doctors against the State Commissionโs order. The primary legal issues revolved around whether informed consent was properly obtained, whether the standard of care was maintained during the treatment, and the appropriateness of the disciplinary actions recommended against Dr. Chowdhury.
The NCDRC upheld the State Commissionโs findings of negligence but modified the penalty regarding Dr. Chowdhuryโs suspension. The Commission noted the importance of obtaining informed consent, emphasizing that it is a legal requirement and not merely a procedural formality. The NCDRC highlighted that the consent form provided to the patient was in Bengali, the patientโs native language, and duly signed by her family members, which undermined the claim of uninformed consent.
The Commission also deliberated on the โBolam Testโ and the evolving standards of medical ethics, concluding that the standard of care was not met in this case. The NCDRC echoed the State Commissionโs view that the attending doctors failed to adhere to the expected medical standards, leading to the unfortunate outcome. However, it set aside the recommendation to suspend Dr. Chowdhuryโs license, deeming it excessive, and instead urged the West Bengal Medical Council to consider appropriate action.
Also Read
Key Court Observations:
The NCDRC underscored the significance of informed consent in medical procedures, quoting from its judgment: โThe patient must be informed about the options for treatment, its consequences, risks, and benefits. Failing to furnish correct and sufficient information when obtaining consent may be a breach of duty of care.โ The court also reinforced that negligence occurs when the conduct of a medical practitioner falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner.
