Kanchipuram: The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kanchipuram held a hospital negligent for engaging a consultant for Neuro-Intervention and Neuro-Radiology without scrutinizing and verifying the qualifications and competency of the Senior Consultant. The Commission also directed the hospital to appoint consultants only after verifying their credentials from Medical Council. The Senior Consultant was restrained from practicing Endovascular-Neuro procedures with immediate effect till he gets registered with Medical Council.
The fact of the case was that the complainant wife was diagnosed with symptoms of seizure and was taken to the hospital where she took the consultancy of the Head of the Neuro Science Department and the Senior Consultant. The senior consultant conducted a D.S.A. (Digital Angio of Brain) and advised the patient to insert stent in one of the veins on the right side of brain. The senior consultant conducted a surgical procedure Right Middle Cerebral Artery (M1 Segment) Intracranial Stenting under local anaesthesia. Around 6 hours post procedure the patient suffered onset of weakness of the left side with dysarthria and left facial asymmetry. Consequently, the patient had worsening of power on the left side and was advised to undergo physiotherapy and continuous medical management.
The complainant alleged that before the surgery the patient could move all the limbs with a power grade of 5/5 of all limbs, used to walk without any support and did not have any speech problem. But when the patient was discharged, patient had power grade of 5 on right side, left 1/5 in the upper limb and 2/5 in the lower limb. The complainant further alleged that the Senior Consultant instead of suggesting non-surgical treatment hastily carried out the procedure for monetary gains which left the patient with a paralytic attack leading to non-movement of left hand and left leg, facial asymmetry and speech issues. The complainant stated that though he had consented for the procedure he was never explained the possible post-procedure risks. The complainant concluded that on these account the hospital and Senior Consultant should be held negligent.
READ ALSO : Junior doctors on strike at Siddhartha Medical College in Vijayawada against attack in ICU
The hospital and Senior Consultant defended the need of the procedure and stated that the patient had been encountering recurrent minor strokes on account of 90% blockage which had to be mandatorily intervened by the intracranial stenting to avoid major stroke. They further defended themselves by stating that the patient and her family were offered detail counselling and the pros and cons of the procedure which included the risk such as major stroke were explained to them and only after they were satisfied informed consent was taken. The hospital and Senior Consultant further defended themselves by stating that the board constituted by the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai has examined the procedure done on the patient and had found no deficiency in the treatment. Also, Tamil Nadu Medical Council has given similar opinion as that given by the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital thereby exonerating the hospital and senior consultant of any medical negligence and hence they were not negligent. The District Consumer Court held the hospital and senior consultant negligent on two counts. The first count was related to the red flag raised by the complainant on the academic qualification of the senior consultant and in turn his competency to perform Endovascular-Neuro procedures. The Consumer Forum pointed out that both the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai and Tamil Nadu Medical Council had nowhere asked the senior consultant to prove his credentials and were silent on
