CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a consumer district forum's order demanding that a doctor who was found to have done a negligent polyp-removal surgery, apart from removing a gel implant of the patient later which led to another corrective surgery-be fined Rs 1 lakh as compensation, terming it deficiency of service. This is because the gel implant was important for controlling blood loss arising out of the surgery, and as a prudent professional, he should not have removed it for the patient, though he claimed without substantiating that the patient herself insisted on it, the commission stated.The order was passed by state commission members A K Annamalai, Vasugi Ramanan and chairperson Justice M Thanikachalam following an appeal made against a North Chennai order. The original complaint was filed by Indira Shanmugam of Nungambakkam, who had in July 2002, undergone a nasal polypectomy operation at the hands of Dr S Sankaralingam, care of a Nursing home in Chetpet, to remove a polyp in her nose. The complainant claimed that she had gone only for a treatment for sinus which the doctor extended to a polyp removal procedure, without informing her. However, post-surgery too, her pain and bleeding did not subside, and two days after the surgery, a gel implant that was then fixed during her surgery, had been removed. This removal procedure affected the healing and bonding of the area in which the gel was, and necessitated another corrective surgery. For this second surgery, the patient claimed that flesh from her thigh was removed to place in the nose, and the spinal cord was punctured to discharge the liquid resulting in permanent disability in her leg and hip area, apart from loss of ability to smell, she claimed.Exactly seven years after the incident, the North Chennai commission had ordered a fine of Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the petitioner in July 2009, payable by both opposite parties in the complaint: the doctor and the hospital that the surgeries were performed.In perusing the appeal filed by these opposite parties, the state commission observed that the hospital had played no role in the surgical process apart from facilitating the same, and hence, was not responsible for the surgery and not liable to pay compensation. Regarding the doctor's involvement, the bench observed that the doctor did not submit any mandated records for both the surgeries performed, like the nurse's chart, drug chart or temperature chart. Even in the discharge summary that the doctor submitted, no reason for the gel implant removal- if it were done on the patient's demand- had been mentioned. The discharge summary also contained a sentence about the corrective surgery, stating 'Closure of the defect was made by...'. Drawing an adverse inference against the doctor using these, the commission reiterated the district forum's order that the doctor must have faulted in the first surgery, which later led to a corrective surgery, and hence upheld the order of compensation.
Comments
0 comment