Case Law Details
Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital And Research Centre & Anr. Vs Shradhanjali Maniya & 3 Ors. (NCDRC)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was held that findings of State Commission that the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk nor their consent was obtained, do not suffer from any illegality as procedure/risk was explained to the patient.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the complainants stated that Surendra Kumar Maniya (the patient) went to the hospital on 15.05.2014 for his treatment of ‘pain in throat’, ‘odynophagia’and ‘change in voice’. On local examination, swelling in right side tonsil was diagnosed. The doctor advised some medicines and tests and admitted him at 14:00 hours. Test Reports were obtained and examined at 18:00 hours, in which, everything was found normal. The doctor advised to continue same medicines. On 16.05.2014 at 8:00 hours, the doctor examined him in the hospital and found his condition as improving. Some more medicines were added. On 16.05.2014, at 19:00 hours, the patient was examined. On 17.05.2014, at 8:30 hours, the patient was examined by visitor Doctor and found normal. The patient was sent to OPD at 10:00 hours on 17.05.2014, where he was attended by P-2 at 10:15 hours. P-2, without taking any precaution, did incision in the right side tonsil to drain out pus from it. Pus started forthcoming and choked larynx and breathing tube and entered into lungs. Due to which, the patient had become unconscious. The patient was immediately taken to ICU and kept on ventilator and died. At the time of death, age of the patient was 36 years and he was earning Rs.15000/- per month. There was every chance of his promotion and increase of income in future. The patient was only earning member in the family. At the time of death of the patient, age of Mrs. Shradhanjali Maniya was 29 years, Ms. Tinkle Maniya was 3 years and Ms. Manashvi Maniya was 7 months. They were deprived from love and affection of their husband/father, for their whole life. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 17.12.2014.
State Commission, by its judgment dated 12.05.2016, found that the doctors of the hospital did not commit any negligence in treating the patient. The death of the patient occurred due to sudden contradiction in the muscles of the patient due to which laryngospasm occurred as usually “negative pressure pulmonary edema” used to be happen in such procedure of treatment. But the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk in treatment and their consent was not obtained before start of treatment. Death percentage of the patient is 11% to 40% due to laryngospasm which usually occur due to “negative pressure pulmonary edema” as such it was necessary for the doctor to inform the patient and his family member about the risk and after obtaining consent, start the process of treatment of incision by making opening in the abscess of the tonsil. The complainants have filed Income Certificate of the deceased as Rs.15000/- per month. At the time of his death, the age of the deceased was 36 years. By applying multiplier of 15 in annual income and deducting 25% towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of Rs.1012500/- was been assessed. On these findings the complaint was allowed and order as stated above was passed. Hence this appeal has been filed by opposite parties-1 and 2.
The National Commission observed that P-2 admitted that written consent was not taken either from the patient or his family member. From medical literature it was proved that mortality rate was 11% to 40% due to laryngospasm which usually occur due to “negative pressure pulmonary edema” as such it was necessary for the doctor to inform the patient and his family member about the risk and after obtaining consent, start the process of treatment of incision by making opening in the abscess of the tonsil. P-2 examined the patient on 17.05.2014 at 10:15 hours, in OPD ENT and decided to adopt the process for draining the pus. Noting in the Patient Progress Note & Doctors Instruction paper, on 17.05.2014 at 10:00 am, that “XST done (Neg). Procedure/risk explained to the patient” appears to be a subsequent endorsement as at 10:00 am, P-2, senior doctor of ENT had not decided for draining the pus. Findings of State Commission that the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk nor their consent was obtained, do not suffer from any illegality.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
