New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing a private hospital and its doctors to pay compensation to a woman, who claimed to have suffered permanent damage to her respiratory tract and permanent voice loss, altering her life forever, due to medical negligence.
A bench comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra observed that there was nothing to show that a procedure (Nasotracheal Intubation) conducted on a patient, who met with a serious car accident on May 5, 2004, was poor or outdated.
The bench noted that, in the present case, the patient was treated and underwent different procedures at multiple hospitals. She underwent the Tracheostomy Tube (TT) procedure at Gondia Hospital in an emergency situation and subsequently, she was attended to by multiple medical experts at Suretech Hospital on May 6, 2004. Therefore, there is a possibility that these medical complications could have arisen at any of these hospitals or places where the patient underwent treatment, said the bench.
Justice Roy, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, pointed out that the only medical report available in this case i.e., the RML Hospital committee report did not attribute any negligence to Suretech Hospital and its doctors with respect to any of the charges levelled against them, and if Nasotracheal Intubation (NI) procedure had been conducted in a negligent manner or was a poor medical decision, it is likely that the RML Hospital committee report would have mentioned it. “Further, none of the doctors that treated the patient commented adversely with respect to the chosen course of treatment. Therefore, there is no substance to establish the causal link between the ‘NI’ procedure that was undertaken at Suretech Hospital and the subsequent medical complications that arose”, said the bench, in its judgment delivered on October 19.
Justice Roy said an alternative course of treatment in the form of an ‘NI’ procedure was opted for as a temporary measure, and there is nothing to show that the procedure conducted was outdated or poor medical practice. “This is a classic case of human fallibility where the doctors tried to do the best for the patient as per their expertise and emerging situations. However, the desired results could not be achieved. Looking at the line of treatment in the present matter, it cannot be said with certainty that it was a case of medical negligence”, said justice Roy.
The doctors and the hospital had moved the apex court against NCDRC order, passed in February 2018, directing them to pay Rs. 6,11,638 in compensation to the woman for medical negligence. The case revolved around a forced Nasotracheal Intubation (NI) procedure conducted on her, resulting in a range of severe medical complications, including tracheal damage, sepsis, and voice loss.
The apex court observed that just because a doctor opts for a particular line of treatment but does not achieve the desired result, they cannot be held liable for negligence, provided that the said course of action undertaken was recognized as sound and relevant medical practice. “This may include a procedure entailing a higher risk element as well, which was opted for after due consideration and deliberation by the doctor. Therefore, a line of treatment undertaken should not be of a discarded or obsolete category in any circumstance”, noted the bench.
The bench said, in this case, there is no evidence to establish that the ‘NI’ procedure is a bad medical practice or based on unsound medical advice and none of the hospitals where the woman was treated prior to Suretech Hospital opined that the ‘NI’ procedure was not medically acceptable.
The woman claimed the negligence led to her suffering from septicemia and thrombocytopenia, but the NCDRC found insufficient evidence for these claims. However, the consumer commission concluded that the forced NI procedure, which replaced the existing TT, was unjustified. The hospital and the doctors have challenged the NCDRC order, and also the woman moved the apex court seeking enhancement of compensation. The apex court said the NCDRC order was found to be erroneous and is set aside, and also dismissed the appeal filed by the woman.
