~ The human body is a complex machine & a doctor wouldn't assure full recovery of a patient in every case.
• Background of the case:
~ The patient was taken to the hospital for jaundice treatment where after investigations, a liver transplant was advised.
~ During the operation the patient suffered from significant blood loss and metabolic acidosis and for this, the patient was kept in the ICU and the condition deteriorated.
~ A 2nd surgery was performed and within 7 days, fungal sepsis was suspected for which Amphotericin was given which ultimately worsened the condition of the patient.
~ Due to fungal infection there was blackening of the surgical wound which led to gangrene and the death of the patient.
• Complainant's allegation:
~ The complainant alleged that the treating doctor and hospital failed to exercise proper care during the surgery and monitor the condition of the patient after the surgery.
~ The doctor delayed the second operation by two days unnecessarily resulting in the worsening condition of the patient, the petitioner alleged.
• Doctor's Defense:
~ The hospital and doctor denied the charges made against them and submitted that the patient was diagnosed with Chronic Liver Cancer and was treated at a different hospital.
~ The operation was done on the patient only after explaining the critical condition of the patient and obtaining the high-risk consent.
~ The treating doctor denied that the operation site was bleeding and simply the blood clots from the patient's abdomen were removed during 2nd operation.
~ The patient expired because of the natural consequences of the chronicity of the disease, it was neither due to any negligence nor deficiency from the treating doctors.
• The Commission held that:
~ The Commission took note that due care was given to the patient during the pre-transplantation period and proper monitoring had been done after the operation.
~ A doctor or surgeon cannot assure and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100 % for the person operated on.
~Complainant failed to conclusively establish deficiency in service and medical negligence on the treating doctor and the hospital.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI