Abstract

A brief perusal of the hospital treatment record shows that the patient was operated for Incision Hernia on 14th December, 2000, the preoperative instructions show that consent was taken, CBC was advised and the patient’s history of Vascular Bypass Surgery was clearly noted. The Complainant had no history of hypertension or tuberculosis, the blood pressure and pulse rate was normal, the random blood sugar which was taken was also normal. It was also noted that the patient was a known Diabetic and was on relevant medication. The operation was performed at 2:30 p.m. and lasted till 6:30 p.m. as per the operation notes.

NCDRC observed that the stand of the treating Doctor in his Written Version ‘that fresh blocks developed in Aorta Iliac Graft was not brought to their notice’, cannot be accepted.

NCDRC further observed that  it is the duty of the treating Doctor to ascertain the complete condition of the Patient through investigation tests, prior to the Surgery, especially in the light of his admitted history of Diabetes and prior Vascular Surgery. [Para 14]

NCDRC concluded thta for all the aforenoted reasons, we are of the view that the Hospital and treating Doctor did not take due care and caution as laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Laxman Balakrishna Joshi (supra). [Para 15]

It was pleaded that it was only on account of the patient’s history and his smoking habits coupled with Diabetes that fresh blocks developed in the Aorto Iliac Graft which the, doctors were never informed by the complainant. [Para 5]

Question for consideration:

• Whether the Complainant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation of ₹50000/- awarded by the State Commission on the ground that proper ‘Informed Consent’ was not taken prior to the operation?

           Role of Anesthetist and Surgeon discussed and lack of reasonable degree of care was reason for medical negligence was concluded by the NCDRC.