Order Name: Jagdish K Sharma Vs. Medanta, The Medicity
Case No.: C.C. No. 1934/2018
The recent verdict made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the supervision of Mr. Binoy Kumar, has absolved Medanta Hospital of any negligence charges. The commission stated that an unfortunate treatment result or a difference in professional perception does not necessarily imply medical negligence, provided the medical professionals are adhering to acknowledged practices.
Let’s delve into the case’s particulars. The complainant’s wife was admitted to Medanta Hospital for a pacemaker implantation procedure, as recommended by the treating doctor. The patient, who had a history of stroke risk, was taken off her regular medication, Pradaxa, for 48 hours prior to the surgery. Post-surgery, the complainant was not allowed to see his wife in the ICU until the bills were cleared. When he was finally granted access, he found his wife unconscious, unattended, and suffering from a severe stroke. The complainant blamed the hospital for not re-administering Pradaxa soon after the surgery and held them responsible for his wife’s stroke and subsequent paralysis. He also alleged that due to the hospital’s unclean conditions, his wife developed an infection in her pacemaker.
However, the hospital and the treating doctor refuted these accusations. They asserted that the patient was given the requisite attention in line with her clinical needs and standard protocol. They also clarified that the stroke she suffered was her fourth one, and it was not a result of their negligence. The complainant, being a cardiologist himself, was informed about the temporary halt of Pradaxa and its resumption 24 hours post-surgery. They also mentioned that the patient was deemed fit for the pacemaker implantation procedure prior to the surgery. Post-surgery, the patient was conscious and showing expected improvements until she suffered a sudden stroke. Immediate tests were conducted, followed by a successful endovascular mechanical thrombectomy procedure. The patient was then discharged in a stable condition.
After careful examination of the case, the Commission concluded that there was no delay in administering Pradaxa post-surgery, as per the expert opinion from AIIMS. The patient did suffer a stroke while being discharged from the ICU, but immediate action was taken, and she was discharged two days later in a stable condition. The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern as the patient’s spouse and a fellow cardiologist but found no evidence that the stroke was a result of the pacemaker implantation, considering the patient’s chronic condition and history. They referred to several Supreme Court case laws and reiterated that medical professionals cannot be deemed negligent if they are acting per accepted practice, and unsuccessful treatment or difference in opinion does not amount to negligence.
In conclusion, the commission found no evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor and dismissed the complaint. This case serves as a reminder that a negative outcome of treatment alone does not necessarily mean negligence on the part of the medical professionals, as long as they are adhering to accepted practices.
