In 2020, a patient underwent a surgical procedure that included a laser sphincterotomy with fissure oblation and a laser hemorrhoidopexy with the excision of external piles at a Bengaluru hospital for the treatment of fissures and external piles. The patient got discharged the next day and paid RS 60,000 as hospital costs.
However, a week after the surgery, the patient complains that she is experiencing complications like anal region swelling, excessive pain, and bleeding from the operated part. The patient was rushed to Manipal Hospital's emergency department and subsequently admitted as an inpatient for five days, which resulted in an extra payment of Rs 80,294.
The patient filed a complaint of negligence, demanding compensation for various charges and medication costs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found in favor of the patient, concluding that the treating doctor did not conduct the operation properly, resulting in problems. The hospital was found responsible and ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation.
The doctor and hospital stated that they never promised a complete cure, either verbally or through their website. They indicated that the patient was educated about potential outcomes and necessary treatment before the surgical procedure. Despite being advised to follow up, the patient failed to do so. Additionally, the patient rated the service a '4' out of '5', indicating satisfaction.
When the consumer court reviewed the discharge summary from Manipal Hospital, it discovered signs of damage and an incomplete sphincterotomy documented by a hospital specialist.
After the discovery of the discharge summary, the opposition party's lawyer argued against implementing a report without an expert opinion or questioning the doctor who authored it.
However, the Consumer Court observed that the complaint underwent treatment and surgery at Manipal Hospital with no evidence of partnership or rivalry between the doctor and the person who complained. Thus, the Court rejected the opposing party's argument, discovering that it lacked validity and that the report should not be ignored without sufficient cause.
The doctor and hospital stated the complaint and consented to the surgery, but they did not blame him for the subsequent bleeding and pain. However, the Commission stated that authorization does not validate the doctor's activities. The Commission additionally pointed out that the doctor's report from Manipal Hospital revealed that the procedure was not performed properly, suggesting the doctor's lack of effectiveness.
The opposing lawyer argued against the commission's authority. However, the Commission referred to Section 2(11) of the CP Act 2019, highlighting patients' expectations of effective treatment, in order to establish the Commission's jurisdiction.
The Commission ordered the doctor to compensate the victim with Rs. 1,00,000 for the emotional stress and inconvenience caused by his negligence, while holding the institution partly accountable. Both the hospital and the doctor were equally responsible for payment. Furthermore, the third-party insurance company that covered the risk was required to pay the amount.
In addition, the Commission ordered the person to pay Rs. 20,000 in litigation fees. Overall, the complaint was largely upheld, with the Commission identifying service faults by the hospital and doctor.
References:
1. Misra B. Faulty fissures operation: Bengaluru Hospital, Doctor slapped compensation [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 4]. Available from: https://medicaldialogues.in/news/health/medico-legal/faulty-fissures-operation-bengaluru-hospital-doctor-slapped-compensation-126641
(Rehash/ Susmita Bhandary)