Chandigarh:
Observing that there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Punjab, has exonerated a Ludhiana-based hospital and a neurosurgeon in a long-pending case related to spine treatment of a patient. The Commission upheld the order of the District Consumer Commission, which had earlier dismissed the complaint.
Background of the Medical Case
The case dates back to 2013, when the complainant was diagnosed with “PIVD L5-S1 with Grade-I spondylolisthesis” and underwent spinal surgery at the respondent hospital on May 28, 2013. Following post-operative complications, including pain and weakness, the patient underwent further interventions, including repositioning of a screw and a re-exploration surgery. Despite multiple procedures and conservative treatment, the complainant alleged continued pain and disability.
Allegations and Consumer Complaint
Claiming mental harassment and medical negligence, the patient approached health authorities and later filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation of over ₹19 lakh. He alleged inconsistencies in medical records and asserted that repeated surgeries reflected improper diagnosis and treatment. The hospital and treating doctor, however, denied negligence, stating that all procedures were performed as per standard medical protocols.
Expert Opinions and Medical Literature Considered
During the proceedings, expert opinions from a Medical Board at PGI Chandigarh were examined. The Board concluded that the complications faced by the complainant were known and accepted risks associated with spinal surgery. The State Commission also relied on medical literature on spondylolisthesis and noted that conditions such as failed back syndrome and fibrosis are recognised post-surgical phenomena and not necessarily indicative of negligence.
Commission’s Final Verdict
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Kusum Sharma vs Batra Hospital, the SCDRC held that the complainant failed to produce any evidence showing lack of competence or deviation from accepted medical practice by the doctor. Concluding that there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission’s order, bringing the prolonged legal dispute to a close.
