Panchkula: Patient’s widow gets ₹5-lakh relief in medical negligence case

Apart from the hospital and the surgeon, the consumer commission also directed The Oriental Insurance Company to pay ₹6,000, along with interest at 9% per annum from May 27, 2017, the date of surgery, till the date of payment, along with ₹7,500 as litigation charges

Over six years after a Kalka resident died owing to alleged medical negligence during a laparoscopic surgery to remove the gallbladder at a private hospital in Pinjore, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has awarded his 52-year-old widow a compensation of ₹5 lakh.

The patient’s widow had submitted before the commission that her husband, Karam Chand, had been having pain in the abdomen and after diagnosis, his gall bladder was found distended. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

“JN Shory Multi-Specialty Hospital, Nalagarh Road, Pinjore, failed to arrange a team of experts prior to starting the laparoscopic cholecystectomy on May 27, 2017, to tackle the emergent health situation and complications, if any, arising during the operation,” ruled the commission, while disposing of the complaint by Laxmi Devi, widow of Karam Chand, resident of Tipra village, Kalka.

The hospital should have ensured availability of a team of experts, belonging to different medical fields, before conducting any surgical operation, observed the commission while directing the hospital and the surgeon concerned, Dr Vimal Shory, to pay ₹5 lakh to Devi.

Apart from the hospital and the surgeon, the commission also directed The Oriental Insurance Company to pay ₹6,000, along with interest at 9% per annum from May 27, 2017, the date of surgery, till the date of payment, along with ₹7,500 as litigation charges.

Patient had abdominal pain

Devi had submitted before the commission that her husband, Karam Chand, had been having pain in the abdomen and after diagnosis, his gall bladder was found distended.

Chand got admitted to JN Shory Multi-Specialty Hospital on May 27, 2017, for elective laparoscopic cholecysterctomy, a minimally invasive surgical procedure to remove the gallbladder.

But during the procedure, he suffered injuries to a bile duct, a hepatic artery and/or portal vein, following which the laparoscopic cholecystectomy was converted to open cholecystectomy.

She alleged that since Dr Shory was unable to manage the case and Chand’s condition was serious, he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, with an open abdomen with seven vascular clamps in-situ.

Chand underwent another surgery at PGIMER the next day. Post surgery, he was moved to the ICU, as his condition was not stable, and he eventually died on July 30, 2017, at the hospital.

PGIMER doctors cited the cause of death as cardiac arrest, and the major biliovascular injury with duodenal injury status during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. As per the medico-legal summary issued by PGIMER, Chand’s liver failed due to the private hospital’s negligence and he could not survive.

Subsequently, an FIR under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Pinjore police station on November 16, 2017.

Later, the Punjab and Haryana high court had stayed the criminal proceedings, vide its orders dated August 30, 2018, and April 25, 2019.

Inquiry panel had found error on surgeon’s part

An inquiry committee, comprising doctors of the Panchkula civil hospital, had termed Chand’s case “rarest of rare”. It had concluded in unambiguous terms that “there was an error on the part of doctor while handling the complications”.

The committee’s report further said, “A surgeon having 30 years of experience was not expected to commit such kind of error/mistake while handling complications.” The committee had also termed the services rendered by the private hospital and doctor while shifting Chand to PGIMER unsatisfactory.

No medical negligence: Surgeon, hospital

The hospital and Dr Vimal Shory refuted allegations of medical negligence, claiming that he had an experience of 33 years as a surgeon and had conducted more than 15,000 surgeries. They argued that the doctor had taken all proper and due precautions, which were necessary as per medical practice and procedure, and thus, there were no lapses and deficiencies on his part.

The Oriental Insurance Company argued that it was liable only in case of error and omission, and not in case of medical negligence. Also, they were not liable as an FIR was registered.