Order Date: Not Mentioned
Order Name: Chief Medical Officer Nehru Satabdi Central Hospital vs. Puja Sahu
Case No.: R.P. No. 1353/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, with AVM J. Rajendra presiding, recently addressed the importance of expert evidence in medical negligence cases.
Case Overview
A woman, bitten by a snake on her thumb, was taken to Nehru Satabdi Central Hospital. She was treated as a paying patient in the pediatric ward. The woman claimed that due to improper treatment from the doctors, she developed gangrene, which led to the amputation of her thumb. She was discharged before fully recovering and had to seek further medical treatment elsewhere, incurring substantial costs. The resulting amputation impacted her daily life, writing ability, self-image, and marriage prospects. She approached the District Commission, seeking Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation for the alleged negligence. The District Commission ruled in her favor, awarding her Rs. 3,00,000 and an additional Rs. 1,000 for litigation costs. The hospital appealed to the State Commission of Orissa, which dismissed the appeal, prompting the hospital to file a revision petition before the National Commission.
Hospital’s Argument
The hospital contended that when the woman was admitted, a tight black thread was found tied around the base of her thumb, causing significant discoloration. This was noted by the Casualty Medical Officer. The hospital argued that the thread, tied by the complainant’s parents, restricted blood flow and caused the gangrene. The hospital staff removed the thread, administered appropriate treatment, and transferred her to the ICU. Despite their efforts, the thumb’s condition necessitated amputation. The hospital claimed no negligence on their part and stated that the woman was discharged only after her condition stabilized. They also mentioned that she missed follow-up appointments. The hospital sought dismissal of the complaint and Rs. 5,00,000 for reputational damage.
National Commission’s Observations
The Commission examined whether the hospital was negligent in treating the snake bite, which led to gangrene and amputation, and to what extent the hospital was liable. The hospital argued that the gangrene was caused by the thread tied by the parents, not by their treatment. Importantly, the Commission noted the absence of expert medical evidence to support the negligence claim. The Supreme Court’s precedent in S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kau & Anr. emphasizes the necessity of expert evidence in determining medical negligence. The Commission found the hospital’s treatment protocol appropriate and in line with accepted medical standards, as supported by Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab. The absence of any expert opinion establishing negligence meant the hospital could not be held responsible.
Conclusion
The National Commission allowed the hospital’s revision petition, overturning the District and State Commission’s orders.
Takeaway
In medical negligence cases, expert evidence is essential to establish fault. Without it, claims of negligence are difficult to substantiate, as demonstrated in this case.
