The patient underwent posterior interosseous skin flap surgery at a reputed hospital in Mumbai. He had fallen down from ladder at his hometown residence, sustaining injuries on his left forearm. The surgery was performed in November, 1998.
Post-surgery, the patient developed cerebral hypoxia and slipped into a coma. He fought valiantly for his life but eventually died in the month of August, 2000 at his hometown.
His wife sued the hospital and its doctors. She alleged that:
- There were discrepancies in notes - the nurse noted that patient was ‘drowsy’ while the anaesthetist noted he was ‘awake’
- Surgeon and anaesthetist neither monitored the patient post-operatively nor took remedial measures to treat cerebral hypoxia
- The patient was shifted to ICU after nearly three hours, and both doctors took their own time in attending him
- Neurologist was not consulted; the doctors did not perform EEG or CT scan
The hospital and doctors denied the allegations and presented complete medical records.
The Commission perused the documents and dismissed the case against doctors and hospital, as it observed the following:
“We don’t see any significant relevance to the remark ‘awake’ made by the anaesthetist in his notes. The doctor, especially anaesthetists, would not fail to distinguish between awake and drowsy. It was used in medical parlance and should not viewed in the dictionary sense”.
“The surgery was finished at 4 PM, patient was stable by 4:15 PM. He showed signs of spontaneous muscular activity and was attempting to breathe. The patient responded to muscular activity as well as verbal commands. After checking vital parameters, the doctors decided to shift him to recovery room at 4:30 PM. At 5:00 pm the doctors and nurses again visited him to check vitals and found everything to be normal. However, suddenly at around 5:10 PM the patient suffered breathing difficulty, his BP started to drop. Doctors rushed to the recovery room, intubating the patient and providing necessary critical care”.
“We don’t accept that there was delay in conducting EEG and CT / MRI. The attending doctor’s prime duty was to stabilize the patient. The CT / MRI was necessary for hypoxic patient unless stroke, bleeding or trauma is suspected, but it was not so in the instant case. As there was no evidence of any focal neurological deficit, in our view the CT scan would’ve not been helpful to change the mode of patient’s management. Moreover, under such condition, it was risky to carry patient to the CT scan department”.
“The hypoxic event could be managed by an anaesthetist and we don’t think presence of neurologist was compulsory”.
Source : Order pronounced by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 22nd December, 2022.