A 20-year-old engineering student was admitted to the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) after he complained of chest pain.
Several tests and X rays were done that revealed a tumor, however, it could not be ascertained whether the tumor was malignant or not, therefore, the patient was advised to undergo surgical removal of the same.
After the surgery, the patient developed acute paraplegia with a complete loss of control over the lower limbs and some other related complications that led to urinary tract infections, bedsores, etc.
The family of the patient held NIMS vicariously liable and the State of Andhra Pradesh statutorily liable (being a government hospital) for the negligence of the doctors concerned.
Allegations were primarily leveled against a doctor, Dr. P.V. Satyanarayana for negligence before, during, and after the operation.
Arguments
The father of the patient argued that he had pleaded with doctors to let him finish his education first before undergoing the operation as there was no emergency or immediate danger to life
He further contended that consent was taken only for the tumor excision; however, the doctors removed not just the tumor but also surrounding ribs, tumor mass, and destroyed blood vessels that led to the condition of paraplegia (paralysis).
Decision
The Court denied the argument by the hospital that the patient was not conscious and hence implied consent to operate was assumed to avoid a second additional operation. The Court looked at various cases of medical negligence and held that gross negligence was committed on part of the doctors. The Supreme Court further mentions that the award of compensation is a balance between many parties and interests, and sympathy for the patient must not come in way of awarding a fair and adequate compensation.
Analysis
As long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available. This also includes a scenario where just because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow a practice or procedure which the accused followed. The conduct needs to be judged based on the day of the operation, and not on trial. In the given set of facts, the doctors did act negligently and were held liable.
