Faulty fissures operation: Bengaluru Hospital, Doctor slapped compensation
Bengaluru: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru has directed Phoenix Hospital and its doctor to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to a patient for deficiency in care while providing treatment for fissures. While considering the complaint, the Commission opined that the treating doctor did not conduct the operation for fissure oblation and excision of external piles properly and did not use his operation skills effectively. The hospital was held vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctor.
The matter goes back to 2020 when the treating doctor operated on the patient at the treating hospital through Laser Sphincterotomy with fissure oblation and Laser Haemorrhoidopexy with excision of external piles and the patient was discharged the next day. For this procedure, the complainant had paid Rs 60,000.
It was alleged by the complainant that a week after the operation, she developed swelling in the anal region as well as irresistible pain and bleeding from the operated part. Due to this, the complainant was about to become unconscious. She was rushed to an emergency at Manipal Hospital and remained admitted there as an inpatient for 5 days. She had to incur an expenditure of Rs 80,294 allegedly due to the negligence of the treating doctor and hospital for not conducting the operation properly and leaving her to fate. Alleging negligence, the patient filed a consumer complaint seeking direction to the hospital and doctor to pay Rs 1,42,094 towards various charges and cost of medicines.
On the other hand, the doctor and the hospital submitted that they did not give any guarantee or assurance to the complainant, either orally or on the website, of a total 100% cure of fissures /haemorrhoids. They claimed that the patient was admitted and operated only after being apprised of the consequences and care for the same.
Apart from this, they also claimed that even though the patient was advised for a follow up and review in the OPD after 7 days of surgery, the complainant failed to do so. It was also highlighted that the complainant rated the service ‘4’ on the scale of ‘5’ indicating her satisfaction with the treatment and the services.
While considering the matter, the consumer court perused the discharge summary issued by Manipal Hospital and noted that the doctor at the hospital gave a finding that circumferential mucosa’ injury with haemorrhoid in 7oclock position with bleeding, incomplete sphincterotomy noted, diffuse bleeding from mucosa. The Commission observed that ‘Manipal Hospital had again conducted the operation and stated with regard to the procedure done in the said report itself. The said finding was given by a specialist in the said hospital.’
“It is the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party that without an opinion from an expert and without the said Doctor had been examined, the said report cannot be accepted as it is. It is not the case of opposite party No. 1 & 2 that the complainant did not take treatment and got operated at Manipal hospital. Further, it is not the case of opposite party that the Doctor at Manipal hospital and the complainant were hand in glove and the complainant had an enmity with opposite party. Under such circumstances, we feel there is no merit in the contention of opposite party in that aspect and on the other hand for the just say that the report cannot be accepted, the report cannot be brushed aside,” the consumer court noted at this outset.
Referring to the contention of the doctor and hospital that the complainant had given consent before the surgery, the Commission noted that the hospital and doctor did not argue that the bleeding and pain in the anal region were because of the negligence of the complainant.
“For mere because the complainant had given consent for the operation, opposite party cannot take the advantage of the same and do whatever he likes. Hence, there is no merit in the said contention. We feel the opinion given by Doctor at Manipal hospital itself is sufficient to hold that the operation was not properly conducted by opposite party No. 2 (the doctor) and opposite party No. 2 did not use his skill of operation effectively,” opined the Commission.
It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that this commission has no jurisdiction. We feel Section 2 (11) of CP Act 2019 attracts with regard to deficiency of service since it is the expectation while approaching the Doctor that he would perform the operation effectively. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party in that aspect. For the above said reasons we feel there was fault in conducting the operation by opposite party No. 2 and since opposite party No. 2 had did the operation at opposite party No. 1 hospital, opposite party No. I hospital is also responsible for same.
Therefore, holding that there was deficiency in service, the consumer court directed the hospital and doctor to pay Rs 1 lakh to the complainant and ordered,
“We feel for the mental trauma under gone and inconvenience caused to the complainant because of the negligence of opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 2 has to pay a notional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and opposite party No. 1 is vicariously liable for the same.”
Apart from this, the Commission also directed the complainant to pay Rs 20,000 as cost of litigation. “Complaint is allowed in part. It is held that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant. Since, the risk is covered in the policy issued by opposite party No. 3, opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay the same,” read the order.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bengaluru-deficiency-in-service-234987.pdf
