New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld findings of medical negligence against a Karnataka-based hospital and ordered it to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to a patient. The case, which dates back to 2007, involved a spinal surgery during which a metallic fragment was left inside the patient’s body, leading to complications.
District Commission’s Findings
The matter first reached the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Court in 2010. After reviewing evidence, the Commission held the neurosurgeon guilty of gross negligence and directed him to pay ₹15 lakh compensation with 9% interest, while the hospital was ordered to pay ₹5 lakh. The court observed that the hospital issued a cryptic discharge summary, withheld crucial details about the surgery, and failed to provide operation notes until compelled through an RTI application.
Patient’s Ordeal and Discovery
The patient discovered the presence of the metallic splinter only after experiencing severe pain while working abroad in Dubai. Radiological reports confirmed the foreign object inside his body, which had not been disclosed at the time of discharge. The District Commission noted that the neurosurgeon had admitted to informing the patient verbally about the fragment but assured it would cause no harm, making the omission in official records a deliberate lapse.
Appeals and Arguments
The hospital and surgeon challenged the ruling before the Karnataka State Consumer Court, which upheld the District Commission’s findings. Subsequently, the hospital filed a revision petition before NCDRC, arguing that as a charitable institution, it should not be held liable, and that negligence by the doctor could not be attributed to the hospital. The counsel also claimed that all necessary documents had been provided to the complainant. However, the patient’s counsel countered that withholding medical notes and providing an incomplete discharge summary amounted to clear deficiency in service.
NCDRC’s Final Verdict
After reviewing the case, the NCDRC dismissed the hospital’s petition, terming the hospital’s actions as gross negligence. The Commission observed that crucial information regarding the metallic fragment was omitted from the discharge summary, and the operation notes were released only after an RTI request. It concluded that the District Commission’s findings were fully justified and required no interference, thereby affirming the hospital’s liability and directing payment of compensation.
