The patient, an elderly lady in her sixties, experienced abdominal pain. The local doctor referred her to a consulting surgeon. The surgeon prescribed medicines but to no avail. USG was also performed by the surgeon, after which the line of treatment was changed. Again, to no avail.
The patient suffered severe bouts of vomiting; hence the surgeon referred her to another hospital. The doctor at this second hospital, in consultation with the surgeon, advised laparoscopic surgery to clear intestinal blockage. However, an open surgery was performed by the surgeon.
The patient developed respiratory issues; she had to be put on a ventilator. Unfortunately, she died after forty-two days.
Her family sued the surgeon, the anaesthetist and radiologist who had performed the USG.
The surgeon stated that he discussed pros & cons of laparoscopic and open surgery with patient’s relatives and a written consent was obtained before the successful completion of open surgery during which a hole in the intestine was repaired. The surgeon further stated that due to patient's respiratory issues, ventilator support was initiated and she was referred to another doctor for further management.
The anaesthetist stated that he only administered anaesthesia and had no further role to play. The radiologist also took a similar stance.
The Commission absolved the anaesthetist and radiologist of any wrongdoing, but did not accept surgeon’s defence as it observed the following:
“The surgeon informed relatives that laparoscopy surgery would be conducted. However, open surgery was performed. It is undisputed that the surgery had led to septicaemia, critical condition of the patient and as a sequel she remained on ventilator and died after forty-two days. While the surgeon had stated that consent for conventional surgery was obtained from the family, the same was not established. Even the Board constituted to look into the matter opined that prima facie negligence on part of the surgeon could not be ruled out”.
The surgeon was held negligent for taking an improper consent, and also ordered to pay eight lakh rupees compensation.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 17th January, 2024.