DR. SAMIR RAI & ANR, DR. PREM RAI HOSPITAL Vs. MEDANTA HOSPITAL & ORS
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-6
NCDRC
Decided on August 11,2020

Dr. Samir Rai And Anr, Dr. Prem Rai Hospital Appellant
VERSUS
Medanta Hospital And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BOLAM V/S. FRIERN HOSPITAL [REFERRED TO]
HUCKS V/S. COLE [REFERRED TO]
JACOB MATHEW VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S K JHUNJHUNWALA VS. DHANWANTI KUMAR & ANR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DR.S.M.KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER, J. - (1.) The complaint was filed by Dr. Samir Rai and his wife Dr. Arpita Rai for alleged medical negligence on the part of the OPs. Dr. Samir Rai expired during the pendency of the complaint, it is being further pursued by the surviving complainant.
(2.) The first complainant Dr. Sameer Rai a renowned Urologist from Amritsar (since deceased herein after referred to as "the patient") was diagnosed to have Aneurysm of the arch of Aorta and on 11.07.2010 referred to New Delhi. On 12.07.2010 he got admitted in Medanta Hospital at Gurgaon (the OP-1) for replacement of Aortic arch. The CT scan and other investigations were performed on 16.07.2010. It was alleged that the CT contrast material caused severe allegoric reaction and resulted into hoarseness of voice and bout of blood came from throat. The doctors contended that it was due to rupture of Aneurysm. The Complainant alleged that the diagnosis of rupture of the Aneurysm was totally wrong, and the OPs-2 and 3 have decided to perform urgent surgery on the next day. The doctors did not provide proper information about the nature of disease and choice of surgery to be performed. The consent was not an informed consent, as both the Complainants were surgeons and would have preferred the endoscopic (closed) method of surgery as it was suggested by one Cardiac surgeon Dr. Rakesh Sudan, but the doctors OPs-2 and 3 performed open surgery. It was alleged that due to unhygienic conditions in the operation theatre the two surgical wounds (one in the groin and one on the chest) became infected and started oozing pus. For its treatment the doctors advised further operations on both the sites, but the patient did not agree and he protested that it was against the established surgical principles.
(3.) For the infected surgical wound in the right groin, OP-3 planned the debridement and secondary suturing on 5.8.2010. At 11-30 a.m., the patient was seen by Dr. Shivani, respiratory specialist and advised if possible General Anaesthesia (GA) should be avoided, as the patient was at high risk. The advice was ignored by the treating doctors and asked the patient to sign Consent form for surgery but the patient refused to sign the Consent form. However, the surgery was forcibly done under GA. The patient came out of anaesthesia and he had severe pain in his right thigh and his whole right arm became numb (paralysed).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.