Patient Suffered Persistent Bleeding After Surgery, Required Emergency Vascular Repair at Another Hospital
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has held a private hospital and one of its surgeons guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service after a patient developed severe complications following surgery. The Commission directed the hospital and the treating surgeon to jointly pay Rs 10.88 lakh towards medical expenses, compensation, and litigation costs.
According to the case records, the patient initially consulted his family physician after noticing a small lymph node on his left leg. Following diagnostic investigations, he was referred to the private hospital, where doctors advised immediate admission for what was described as a one-hour minor surgical procedure, assuring discharge the following day.
As the patient was diabetic, surgery was performed after stabilising his condition. However, soon after the operation, his attendants observed heavy bleeding from the surgical site. Despite repeated complaints, they were informed that post-operative bleeding for up to two days was normal.
Continuous Bleeding Led to Multiple Surgeries
When the bleeding failed to stop even after three days, the surgeon performed a second surgery. The patient continued to experience significant blood loss during and after the procedure, requiring transfusions of 12 units of plasma and 12 units of O-positive blood.
Subsequently, the treating doctor suggested referral to a higher medical centre, reportedly stating that the hospital lacked vascular surgery facilities. After discharge, the patient was shifted to another hospital, where vascular surgeons performed emergency surgery to control the bleeding and repair the damaged blood vessels. He was later discharged following successful treatment.
Patient Alleged Negligent Surgical Care
The patient approached the Consumer Commission, alleging that negligent surgical procedures at the first hospital caused persistent bleeding and forced him to undergo emergency vascular surgery at another healthcare facility. He also claimed substantial financial losses, prolonged suffering, and inability to manage his restaurant business due to the complications.
The hospital and surgeon denied the allegations, maintaining that treatment was provided according to established medical protocols. They argued that the second surgery was a planned re-exploration and debridement procedure rather than an emergency intervention for uncontrolled bleeding. They also claimed that the patient was only advised to seek a vascular surgeon’s opinion as a precaution.
Commission Found Contradictions in Hospital Records
After examining medical records, discharge summaries, referral letters, and submissions from both parties, the Consumer Commission identified several contradictions in the hospital’s documentation.
The Commission observed that while the discharge summary claimed haemostasis had been achieved, the same document also recorded persistent bleeding and referred the patient to a higher centre for further management. It held that these statements were inconsistent and indicated that the patient was discharged despite unresolved clinical complications.
The Commission further noted contradictions regarding whether a third surgery had been advised, observing that different submissions made by the hospital and surgeon were inconsistent with each other.
Emergency Vascular Surgery Confirmed Earlier Damage
Medical records from the second hospital revealed that the patient was admitted with active bleeding from the left groin and diagnosed with a left thigh hematoma. Emergency surgery included exploration of the thigh, ligation of the Great Saphenous Vein (GSV), and primary repair of the femoral vein.
The Commission concluded that these procedures demonstrated damage to major blood vessels during or following the earlier surgeries performed at the first hospital. It also observed that the treating hospital lacked the facilities and expertise to manage the vascular injury, necessitating referral to a higher centre.
Based on the available evidence, the Commission held that the hospital and surgeon were negligent in providing treatment and deficient in their medical services.
Rs 10.88 Lakh Compensation Awarded
Allowing the complaint partly, the Consumer Commission directed the hospital and the surgeon to jointly and severally pay:
- Rs 8,38,532 towards medical expenses and hospitalisation costs.
- Rs 2,00,000 as compensation for pain, prolonged suffering, mental agony, and financial loss.
- Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.
The Commission held that the patient was entitled to reimbursement for both the treatment received at the first hospital and the subsequent vascular surgery required to rectify the damage caused during the earlier procedures.
