Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed a fresh investigation into allegations that a hospital operated on the wrong knee of a patient, citing procedural irregularities in the earlier inquiry. The bench observed that the previous committee was not properly constituted under the relevant rules.
Improper Committee Constitution
The HC bench, led by Justice Parth Prateem Sahi, noted that the inquiry was conducted by a four-member committee consisting solely of doctors, chaired by an Assistant Professor of Surgery. Under Rule 18 of the 2013 Rules, such committees must be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector and include specialist doctors. The court stated that the previous report “cannot be considered a valid report” in the eyes of the law.
Petitioner’s Complaint
The petitioner, suffering from knee joint pain, was treated at multiple hospitals but continued to experience difficulties. Following medical advice, she was admitted to a hospital for knee surgery. However, despite having issues with her left knee, her right knee was operated on first. When she raised concerns, her left knee was also operated on.
Allegations of Negligence
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the inquiry failed to address allegations against both the first and second hospitals and their doctors. Documents submitted indicated that only the left knee required treatment, yet the committee allegedly overlooked this and erroneously concluded there was no medical negligence.
Hospitals’ Defense
The hospitals and state authorities contended that the surgery on both knees was conducted with the petitioner’s and her family’s consent. They argued that the grievance had been properly considered and addressed by the committee of doctors.
High Court Observations
The court highlighted that the complaint had been submitted to the Collector, the Supervisory Authority under the Adhiniyam, 2010, which had the power to constitute an inquiry committee. Since the committee did not comply with Rule 18 of the 2013 Rules, the previous inquiry was invalid, regardless of any submissions by the hospitals.
Directions for Re-Inquiry
The HC ordered the Collector, as Supervisory Authority, to consider the petitioner’s complaint afresh and constitute a committee in accordance with the Adhiniyam, 2010, and Rule 18 of 2013. Both sides must be granted an opportunity of hearing during the inquiry.
Timeline for Completion
The court directed that the re-inquiry should be completed expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order, strictly following the law. The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, leaving that to the reconstituted inquiry.
