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.