Even if the Doctor does everything right, Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is beyond his control. : Adv. ROHiT ERNADE ©

“Even if the Doctor does everything right, Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is beyond his control” –


Allegations of hysterectomy without informed consent, resulted into DVT, turned down, as the Doctor immediately took the patient to the higher centre”.

Adv. ROHiT ERNADE ©

Case Details :

G. RADHA V/s. DR. JANAKI & 2 ORS, Telangana

REVISION PETITION NO. 458 OF 2021 


BEFORE : (NCDRC):

HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR, MEMBER


Judgment Link : 

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F458%2F2021&dtofhearing=2022-07-25


Dated : 25 Jul 2022

Facts in short :

1 The facts in brief are that the Complainant -Appellant, a house wife, about 47 years of age, underwent hysterectomy operation at Chaitanya Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP-2’). It was performed by Dr. Janaki (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP-1’) on 30.06.2009. 

2 It was alleged that the OP-1 performed hysterectomy operation without informed consent.  The consent was pre-printed and it amounts to unfair trade practice as held in the judgment of this Commission in C.C.428/2018—Vinod Khanna Vs. R.G. Stone Urology, decided on 06.07.2020.  

3 It was further alleged that in the midnight of the operated day, the patient was suddenly taken to Gandhi Hospital without explaining the condition of the patient.  Thus, it was a case of res ipsa loquitur.  The Complainant further alleged that the expert opinion was also not as per standard guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Being aggrieved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. 

4 The District Forum, on hearing the parties and considering the averments, dismissed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed First Appeal before the State Commission, relying on the expert opinion, dated 17.06.2010 of Dr. P. Padmaja, Superintendent, Govt. Maternity Hospital, Hyderabad which confirmed no medical negligence in the instant case,  the state commission dismissed with the following observations:

“A perusal of the records submitted from Gandhi Hospital reveals that all necessary investigations were advised and the suspicion that she was suffering from pulmonary embolism or any other catastrophic event needed to be confirmed.  There is, however, no reference to state that the surgery conducted by Opposite party No. I doctor was negligent or wrongly performed. Surgery is one of the major causes of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT). Clots happen when blood thickens and sticks together. Sometimes the clots can travel to the lungs and this is called P.E and it can be life threatening it if blocks blood flow. Clot can form after any procedure particularly on the abdomen, pelvis or hips or legs. Obviously the opposite party no.1 doctor shifted her to Gandhi Hospital and early treatment was initiated. DVT is not always the result of negligence. A doctor can do everything right and a patient may still develop DVT. The critical issue is whether negligence actually caused the harm. This has not been established.

It was lastly observed by the State commission that : “The Opposite party No.1 doctor would only be liable if the pulmonary embolism or the resulting damage was not prevented. She shifted the patient to Gandhi Hospital post haste for further treatment. In Jacob Mathews vs. State of Punjab, reported in III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), the Court has rightly observed that "when a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury".

 5.      Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

Held :

1. The national Commission confirmed the view of the State commission and dismissed the compliant. 

2. From the record, it appears that the patient after the complaints of chest pain, was  immediately attended it was confirmed to be the clear symptoms of air embolism i.e. rare complication during post-operative period and therefore the patient was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital and the OP-1 herself accompanied in the ambulance. 

3. Therefore, in our view, it was correct decision and a proper duty of care, thus not negligence. 

4. The Commission further held that in the Revisional Jurisdiction, this Commission is limited and it can intervene only when the commission finds that, the Lower Forum committed jurisdictional error, or ignored a legal principle, or committed miscarriage of justice, this Commission.  


This case has dealt with very important point i.e. “A doctor can do everything right and a patient may still develop DVT”. This can also be applied in the cases of Anaphylaxis cases, which is the nightmare for Doctors, especially Anaesthetists. The proper Documentation also helped the Doctors and importantly, the allegations of printed consent is no consent have been impliedly seem to have been rejected !


Thanks and Regards

(Adv. ROHiT ERANDE) ©

Pune.  


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor ...
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips...
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno...
Read more