New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld a compensation of Rs 50 lakh against Fortis Hospital doctors for medical negligence in treating a patient suffering from ‘Mobile Atlanto Axial Dislocation’ (AAD).
The hospital and its Medical Superintendent, however, were exonerated due to a lack of evidence establishing vicarious liability.
Case Background
In 2011, the complainant’s son, suffering from AAD due to a childhood injury, underwent surgery at Fortis Escort Hospital, Jaipur. AAD, a condition involving the spinal cord and cervical area, can cause severe neurological deterioration, including quadriplegia and respiratory compromise.
The surgery was conducted on November 24, 2011, without fresh pre-operative investigations. Two days later, the patient was discharged but died of cardiac arrest on May 1, 2012, during hospitalization at another facility.
State Commission’s Order
The Rajasthan State Consumer Court held that negligence during the operation and post-operative care led to the patient’s death. It directed Fortis Hospital and its doctors to pay Rs 50 lakh in compensation.
Hospital and Doctors’ Defense
The hospital and doctors appealed to the NCDRC, citing:
- Diagnosis and Treatment: The patient had a severe condition due to a long-standing injury, and immediate surgery was advised.
- Informed Consent: Consent for surgery was obtained, and procedures were performed per standard protocols.
- Natural Complications: The post-surgery condition and eventual death were attributed to the severity of the disease, not negligence.
- Precedents: They relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that not all adverse outcomes constitute negligence.
Complainants’ Allegations
The complainants argued that:
- Surgery was conducted in undue haste without proper investigations like fresh MRI or CT scans.
- Pre-operative consent for subsequent procedures was not obtained.
- Post-surgery MRI revealed bony fragments compressing the spinal cord, which were left behind due to negligence.
NCDRC Observations
The NCDRC, while agreeing with the State Commission, found:
- Negligence by Doctors: Pre-operative investigations were not conducted, and surgeries proceeded based on older reports.
- Consent Violation: Prior informed consent for certain procedures, including a tracheostomy, was not obtained.
- Post-Surgery MRI Findings: The patient’s condition showed no improvement post-surgery.
The commission upheld the Rs 50 lakh compensation, noting the quantum as reasonable. However, it exonerated the hospital and its Medical Superintendent, stating no specific evidence of vicarious liability.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to medical protocols, including thorough pre-operative investigations and obtaining informed consent, to avoid tragic outcomes and liability.
