Kasaragod: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held a Kerala-based private hospital and its doctors responsible for the death of a 21-year-old endosulfan victim who underwent testicular surgery. The Commission directed them to pay ₹13.30 lakh as compensation to the patient’s parents, along with 6 percent annual interest from the date of the complaint, and an additional ₹25,000 as litigation costs—bringing the total payable amount to over ₹19.54 lakh.
Surgery Followed by Anaesthetic Complications
The case dates back to 2017 when the patient, who had a mental disability and had been affected by endosulfan exposure, developed an infection in his testicle. A surgeon advised immediate surgery, and an anaesthesiologist administered anaesthesia for the procedure. However, the patient never regained consciousness and was later shifted to Father Muller Hospital in Mangalore, where he died six days later.
Post-Mortem Points to Anaesthetic Failure
The patient’s family alleged medical negligence, and a police inquest was conducted. A post-mortem by the Professor of Pariyaram Medical College revealed that the cause of death was an anaesthetic complication involving the respiratory system. Despite this, the hospital and doctors denied negligence, claiming that standard medical practices were followed and that the patient’s endosulfan-related medical history had not been disclosed by the parents.
Hospital Denies Negligence, Cites Apex Medical Board Opinion
The hospital argued that Doppler studies confirmed testicular torsion requiring surgery and that anaesthesia was induced with Propofol as per guidelines. They stated that the patient had stable vitals during the 40-minute procedure and was later shifted with oxygen support. The defence also relied on an opinion from the Apex Medical Board which stated there was “no gross or culpable negligence” by the doctors, arguing that no expert evidence contradicted their clinical decisions.
Commission Rejects Apex Board’s Unreasoned Opinion
While evaluating the evidence, the consumer court observed that the Apex Board’s conclusion lacked reasoning. It held that the post-mortem and histopathological reports—clearly attributing the death to anaesthetic complications—constituted primary medical evidence. The Commission stated that such direct scientific findings could not be overridden by an unreasoned medical board report.
Deficiencies in Anaesthetic Care Highlighted
The court dismissed the doctors’ claim that the patient’s endosulfan status was not disclosed, calling it “not believable”, especially for a mentally disabled, non-verbal patient. It stressed that enhanced anaesthetic precautions were mandatory in such cases, including thorough neurological and respiratory assessments, modified consent through guardians, adjusted dosing, enhanced intra-operative monitoring, and prolonged post-operative observation—none of which were clearly documented.
Burden of Proof Shifts to Hospital
Noting that the death occurred during or shortly after anaesthesia, the Commission held that the hospital was obligated to prove that all standard precautions were taken. It stated that once post-mortem evidence linked the death to anaesthetic complications, the burden shifted to the opposite parties to demonstrate the absence of negligence. In the absence of such proof, the Commission concluded that there was clear deficiency in service.
Compensation Ordered to the Patient’s Family
Based on the findings, the consumer court ordered the hospital and three doctors to jointly and severally compensate the patient’s parents with ₹13.30 lakh plus 6 percent annual interest from the date of complaint until realization, along with ₹25,000 as litigation costs. The payment is to be made within 30 days of receiving the order.
