A patient, throughout her pregnancy in 2004, consulted a doctor in Kerala’s hospital. During the 4th month of pregnancy, the patient developed breathing problems which after delivery developed into severe chest infection. So, on 31^st May 2004, laparoscopic sterilization was performed where unfortunately the patient was brought to the post-operative ward and passed away which was informed to the husband by the on-duty nurse. The cause of the patient’s death was bronchopneumonia that she may have developed during pregnancy. Being aggrieved by the death due to alleged negligence of the hospital and the treating doctors, the patient’s husband and his two daughters filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission, praying for compensation of Rs. 75 lakhs. The State Commission dismissed the Complaint holding that the death of the patient had not occurred due to medical negligence. So, aggrieved by this decision, the patient’s husband filed an appeal before the National Commission.

Complainants’ allegations of medical negligence:

The husband of the deceased patient
has alleged that the death of patient was due to the negligence of the treating
doctors, the gynecologist and anesthesiologist and that they had failed to do
proper pre- check-up and then performed laparoscopic surgery when the patient
was not fit. There is medical literature issued by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of India that laparoscopic sterilization especially
under general anesthesia must be avoided during the post-partum period.

Doctor’s defense:

The opposite parties (i.e the Doctors and Hospital) submitted
that the death of patient occurred due to aspiration pneumonia and pulmonary
oedema leading to Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome and not due to any negligence or
deficiency in the services. Further, there was no evidence to establish that the
patient was suffering from Bronchopneumonia at the time of surgery.

Findings of NCDRC:

·         The bench noted that the Medical Record that the patient did not show the clinical signs of bronchopneumonia and on 31^st May 2004, the patient reported complete subsidence of cough.

·         As per the government order, a panel was constituted with specialist doctors and the District Government Pleader. The panel opined that it was a case of gross negligence of the doctors and that the case can be proceeded against them as per law as surgical procedure should have been avoided as occasional crepitation indicated lower respiratory tract infection.

·         A bench has observed that the patient’s duty of care starts from the time of admission. The responsibility of care is on treating doctor and hospital till the patient’s discharge from the hospital. The post-operative complications and resuscitation were managed with consultation of specialist like two anesthetists, senior general physician and a chest physician. But, to save the life of patient, the Opposite Parties ailed to refer the patient to medical college. Thus, the doctors have acted negligently and caused irreparable loss to the patient’s husband and children.

·         The evidence on record, the statements of witnesses and the medical literatures support the case of the complainant. Hence, the hospital and the doctors liable for the breach in duty of care and act of omission, thus a medical negligence.

·         The bench relied upon the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, where it was observed that in cases where the doctors act, carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in tort would be maintainable. It was further observed that if the doctor has taken proper precautions and despite that if the patient does not survive then the court should be very slow in attributing negligence on the part of the doctor.

·         The bench stated that the doctors are liable for the acts of omission. In the medical negligence cases the quantum of Compensation is highly subjective in nature as the human life is most precious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down different methods to determine ‘just and adequate compensation’. However, further cautioned therefore a, saying the amount of compensation awarded was not expected to be a bonanza, nor should it be a pittance. Hence, the Hospital and the two treating doctors are directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs which shall keep the amount in Fixed Deposit in the names of two daughters in equal proportions till both attain the age of 25 years. Complainant may draw periodic interest for the welfare and expenses of his daughters.