The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, has admitted a complaint seeking Rs 7.02 crore in compensation over the death of a 16-year-old boy during nasal surgery at a Chennai-based ENT hospital.
Consumer Court Admits Rs 7.02 Crore Compensation Complaint
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kolkata (Unit 1) has issued notices to a Chennai-based senior ENT specialist, an anaesthetist and the hospital in connection with a Rs 7.02 crore medical negligence complaint.
The complaint was filed by the mother of a 16-year-old boy who allegedly died on the operation theatre table while undergoing nasal surgery at the Chennai-based ENT hospital on June 13, 2024.
The complainant has alleged medical negligence and deceptive trade practices, claiming compensation of Rs 7.02 crore from the doctors and hospital.
Boy Allegedly Died During Nasal Surgery
According to the complaint, the patient was a high school student with no significant pre-existing or co-morbid medical condition apart from a deviated nasal septum (DNS) and sinusitis.
The family allegedly travelled from Kolkata to Chennai after being attracted by an online advertisement for treatment at a specialised ENT hospital.
Following evaluation, the treating senior ENT surgeon allegedly assured the family that the condition could be treated through a short nasal surgery and that the patient would be discharged on the same day after recovering from anaesthesia.
The patient was subsequently scheduled for septo-FESS (functional endoscopic sinus surgery) under general anaesthesia on June 13, 2024.
Sudden Collapse After Anaesthesia
According to the complaint and anaesthetic records, the patient was taken to the operation theatre at around 7:15 am and maintained normal blood pressure until approximately 8:45 am.
The complaint alleges that the patient’s blood pressure subsequently dropped rapidly and that he suffered cardiac arrest soon after the administration of anaesthesia.
Although medicines and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were reportedly attempted for around an hour, the patient was declared dead at approximately 11:15 am.
The cause of death was recorded as “Malignant Hyperthermia due to succinyl choline”, according to the complaint.
Allegations Over Management of Malignant Hyperthermia
The complainant alleged that the patient developed malignant hyperthermia (MH), a rare and potentially life-threatening reaction associated with certain anaesthetic agents and muscle relaxants.
The complaint further alleged that appropriate emergency management measures for an acute MH crisis were not followed and that dantrolene sodium, a specific treatment used in the management of malignant hyperthermia, was not administered.
The complainant also alleged that the doctors and hospital failed to provide complete medical records related to the treatment.
These allegations are part of the consumer complaint and have not been established as findings of medical negligence by the Consumer Commission at this stage.
Complaint Cites Medical Literature
In support of the complaint, the patient’s mother submitted medical literature concerning the management of malignant hyperthermia.
The complainant argued that advances in the understanding and treatment of MH have substantially reduced mortality associated with the condition.
She further alleged that the medical records showed that recommended steps for managing an acute MH crisis were not followed and that the failure to administer dantrolene contributed to the patient’s death.
Compensation Sought for Alleged Medical Failure
The complaint stated that while the loss of a human life cannot be compensated in monetary terms, the family should be entitled to compensation for the alleged medical failure and resulting financial and non-financial losses.
The complainant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Balaram Prasad vs Kunal Saha & Ors., contending that just compensation in medical negligence cases should take into account pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, along with factors such as interest, inflation and punitive damages.
Consumer Court Finds Prima Facie Case
After considering the complaint and documents submitted by the complainant, the Consumer Commission observed that the matter fell within its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Commission further observed that a prima facie case had been made out against the opposite parties and provisionally admitted the complaint.
The Consumer Court has issued notices to the concerned doctors and hospital and fixed August 14, 2026, for their appearance and response.
The proceedings will determine the allegations raised in the complaint. At this stage, the allegations of medical negligence remain subject to adjudication by the Consumer Commission.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply