Background of the Case
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi, recently dismissed allegations of medical negligence against a Delhi-based hospital and its treating doctor in a case involving the death of a patient during treatment for urinary difficulty. The Commission observed that urinary catheterisation is a recognised treatment option for urethral stricture, and found no deficiency in medical care.
Patient’s Medical History and Allegations
The case dates back to 2015, when the patient initially complained of difficulty in urination and consulted a nursing home. A routine urine test returned normal results, following which medicines were prescribed. In October 2015, the patient visited the opposite party hospital, where further investigations were advised and catheter insertion was proposed after the patient failed to pass urine for two hours. The patient allegedly cried in pain during the procedure and was declared dead shortly thereafter. The family accused the doctor of negligence, questioned the absence of ICU facilities, and sought ₹18 lakh in compensation.
Hospital and Doctor’s Defence
The hospital contended that the patient was suffering from acute-on-chronic urinary retention, supported by an earlier ultrasound showing significant post-void residual urine. A provisional diagnosis of urethral stricture, a medical emergency, was made. Standard treatment through urethral catheterisation was attempted using a thin Foley catheter with adequate lubrication. When the patient complained of pain, the procedure was immediately stopped. The patient then suddenly developed convulsions and cardiorespiratory arrest, despite prompt resuscitative efforts.
Expert Medical Opinion
The Commission sought an independent expert opinion from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital. The medical board stated that the exact cause of convulsions could not be ascertained, and that the seizures were unlikely to be a complication of catheterisation. The report confirmed that the patient developed sudden generalized tonic-clonic seizures, followed by cardiac arrest, and could not be revived despite CPR.
Commission’s Findings and Verdict
Relying on medical literature, expert opinion, and Supreme Court precedents, the Consumer Court concluded that catheterisation is an accepted treatment for urethral stricture and that no evidence of negligence was established. The Commission held that the convulsions and death could not be directly attributed to the procedure and dismissed the complaint, stating that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the hospital or the doctor.
