Woman dies after ‘routine’ tubectomy: Doctor, hospital told to pay family Rs 37 lakh

The commission also observed that “failure on the part of the treating doctor throws the shadow of liability squarely upon the treating doctor, 2nd opposite party, to hold that the services rendered to the patient suffer from negligence and are deficient in nature”.

The mother, brother and sister of the victim alleged that on August 12, 2019, the victim had approached the hospital to undergo a tubectomy operation and while performing the surgery, the large intestine was cut due to the doctor’s negligence. As a result, the victim suffered from faecal infection followed by ‘sepsis shock’, which led to multiple organ failure soon after.

The family claimed that since the doctor could not recognise the problem, they had to rush to shift the victim to another hospital for better treatment. However, since the treatment was expensive, the victim was admitted to a third hospital till August 31, 2019, after which she had to be shifted to a government hospital.

When the problem was diagnosed by the second hospital, the family filed an FIR against the first hospital and the doctor on August 17, 2019. According to the family, despite the best efforts of the government hospital, the victim could not be saved and passed away on September 4, 2019. The family then sought compensation from the first hospital and the doctor for their medical expenses but they were denied the same, forcing them to file a consumer complaint.

‘Private medical practitioner’

Advocate O Srinivas, appearing for the hospital, argued that the family members were not the proper legal heirs of the victim and could not “maintain the complaint”. The counsel further submitted that the doctor was “a private medical practitioner” and preferred to use the services of the hospital as and when required for conducting surgeries for her patients on a payment basis.

The counsel said the hospital was “a charitable organization running OPD and inpatient block to reach out to the poor and downtrodden” and that the charges collected from the patients were minimum amounts to keep the institution running. He also argued that the victim was not a patient of the hospital.

Advocate Kancharla Ravi Kumar, representing the doctor, submitted that she  had taken into consideration the age and obesity of the victim and exercised utmost care in performing the tubectomy, but the victim developed complications 24 hours after the surgery, and the symptoms could have been that of a kidney disease.

The counsel argued that even the expert committee constituted by the government to enquire into the death said there was no medical negligence on the part of the doctor, and that the medical negligence which occurred during treatment in the other hospitals could not be attributed to the doctor.

‘Sheer negligence’

The district consumer commission stated that the expert committee report, discharge summary of the second hospital and the case sheet of the doctor established that the death of the victim was a result of post-operative complications after the surgery.

The expert committee report was also rejected by the commission because the committee got “carried away” by the doctor’s oral statements. According to the commission, “the doctor had not shown the committee a record as per which the victim had undergone a uterus surgery 7 years ago which made her prone to certain post-surgery complications which in fact caused difficulty during the tubectomy leading to accidental rectal injury”.

The commission further stated that the hospital provided the guidelines issued by the government, where special techniques while conducting tubectomy surgeries were mentioned, but “admittedly the doctor exhibited sheer negligence while conducting surgery and caused injury to the rectum and without following the guidelines closed the surgical wound which resulted in secondary post-operative complications which ultimately led to death of the deceased”.

The bench held that the family members were the legal representatives of the victim and could maintain the claim for compensation. Accordingly, it directed the hospital and the doctor to pay Rs 12 lakh to the family members and further ordered the doctor to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation for loss of life of the victim. The hospital and doctor were also asked to pay litigation costs of Rs 25,000 to the family.

Takeaway

The ruling establishes the obligation of doctors to ensure proper treatment of patients and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh: 1800-11-4000) and union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

AIIMS Rishikesh ordered to pay Rs 60,000 after ‘wrongly declaring’ man as HIV positive

Woman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakh

Nearly 6 lakh cases pending in consumer commissions, over 860 posts vacant: Centre