In a landmark decision of Jagadeesan Ranga Rajan (Alias J R Rajan) Vs Dr. Anant E Bagul & Anr., the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a doctor and a hospital to jointly and severally pay Rs. 50 lakh as compensation to a complainant, who lost his leg due to medical negligence. The ruling was made after the complainant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the State Commission's dismissal of his case. The NCDRC's decision sets aside the State Commission’s order and highlights key issues of medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and the failure to conduct necessary diagnostic tests.
The Case: Allegations of Negligence and Medical Malpractice
The complainant, a man who had polio as a child, sought medical help from a doctor and hospital for corrective surgery to address a one-inch discrepancy in the length of his left leg. The complainant claimed that he was assured by the doctor that a corrective surgery would allow him to walk normally. He was told that the surgery would take about one hour and involve two procedures: a "Triple Fusion" surgery and an Illizarov joint surgery.
However, during his stay at the hospital, several issues arose. The complainant alleged that an additional third surgery was performed without his knowledge. He claimed that after the surgeries, he began to experience severe pain, discomfort, and lack of sensation in his leg. Despite multiple complaints of a foul smell coming from the wound and his inability to move his toes, the hospital staff did not attend to his condition properly. As a result, the wound became infected, and maggots were discovered on his leg. This ultimately led to the need for amputation.
The Inadequacy of Post-Surgical Care:
The complainant's primary accusations revolved around the inadequate post-operative care provided by the hospital. He argued that the hospital staff failed to conduct necessary tests, such as a Doppler test, despite repeated complaints of numbness and lack of blood circulation in the operated leg. It was also claimed that the hospital did not properly address the presence of a dangerous bacteria, Pseudomonas, which was found during a culture sensitivity test. The complainant's condition deteriorated to the point where amputation was the only option.
Additionally, the complainant contended that he was not adequately informed about the risks and complications of the surgery. The consent form was in Marathi, a language the complainant did not understand, and he was not fully briefed on the potential dangers or the nature of the treatment. The complainant also alleged that the hospital's hygiene standards were subpar, citing instances such as an insect being removed from his ear while he was hospitalized.
Court's Findings on Medical Negligence:
The NCDRC critically reviewed the evidence and found significant flaws in the hospital's handling of the case. First, the Commission observed that the hospital had failed to conduct basic diagnostic tests such as the Doppler test, which could have identified arterial blockages or other complications. This omission, coupled with the complainant's complaints of numbness and lack of blood flow, contributed to the deterioration of his condition.
The court also noted that the complainant's infection likely originated in the hospital, as indicated by the culture sensitivity test taken during his hospital stay. The hospital's argument that the infection was acquired elsewhere was dismissed, as the records showed that the complainant had been under the hospital’s care at the time the infection developed. Furthermore, the fact that the complainant’s leg was not properly treated, despite numerous follow-up visits and medical reports, reinforced the claim of medical negligence.
Moreover, the issue of informed consent was also significant. The consent form signed by the complainant was in Marathi, a language he did not understand, which raises questions about whether he was adequately informed about the risks and potential complications of the surgery.
The Court's Final Ruling:
The NCDRC concluded that the hospital and doctor had breached their duty of care, leading to the complainant’s severe injury. The failure to perform necessary tests, the lack of proper post-operative care, and the inadequate explanation of the risks associated with the surgery were all deemed instances of negligence.
In light of the medical negligence, the court decided to award the complainant a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50 lakh. This amount was considered fair and just, given the serious nature of the injury and the emotional and physical trauma the complainant endured. The hospital and doctor were directed to pay the compensation within eight weeks, failing which interest at a rate of 9% per annum would be levied.
Conclusion:
This case highlights the importance of informed consent, proper post-surgical care, and adherence to medical protocols. The NCDRC’s decision serves as a reminder to healthcare professionals and institutions about their legal and ethical obligations to provide adequate care to patients. By holding the doctor and hospital accountable for their negligence, the court has reinforced the need for high standards in medical practice to ensure patient safety and well-being.
Section 19, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
