Copyright medicaldialogues
Chandigarh: Holding a Ludhiana-based hospital and a urologist and transplant surgeon liable for negligence, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, recently upheld an order of the District Court, which earlier ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation to the family of the patient.It was noted that just one day before the surgery, the complainant was informed that the transplantation could not be conducted as a stone was found in both kidneys of the donor.While considering the matter, the State Consumer Court noted that around 2 months before the surgery, test reports had indicated that the donor kidney had a problem of cysts and developing stones. The Commission observed that the doctor was negligent, as despite being a qualified practitioner in his field, he failed to take timely action based on the report. "...it is clear that to some extent the OP No.2 (the doctor) was careless in noticing the exact cause shown in the reports of the Donor and he had failed to reach to the conclusion that the Donor was not fit for donating the kidney well before the date of admission of the Complainant in the Hospital on 21.04.2016. Only on 25.04.2016 just before the date of operation/surgery, he had informed the Complainant and his family members that the Donor was not fit to donate the kidney to the Complainant, when both the Complainant and Donor were got admitted on 21.04.2025 for said surgery. Such an act can be said to be a case of ‘carelessness/deficiency in service’ on the part of OPs No.1 (hospital)&2," observed the Commission."The responsibility of the Doctor was not started on treating the patient but his duty starts from the period of ‘pre and post treatment examination’, when the patient had approached him to consult and after surgery for further course of action," it further noted.Case Background: The history of the case goes back to 2016 when the patient, who was suffering from a kidney problem, had approached the Ludhiana-based hospital for treatment, and the treating doctor, a urologist and transplant surgeon, after a check-up, had advised kidney transplantation. For this, the complainant was asked to arrange for a person to donate his kidney to him. The patient's real brother agreed to donate his kidney, and after conducting all the necessary tests, the treating doctor informed that everything was fine regarding the kidney transplantation. Accordingly, the doctor issued Form-4 i.e. certification of medical fitness of living donor and all other formalities regarding kidney transplantation were completed by the treating hospital. Meanwhile, the patient got admitted to the hospital on 21.04.2016 and deposited Rs 2,65,000 as transplantation fee.However, on the day before the surgery, when the anaesthetist visited the patient to give an injection, on seeing the medical reports and the CT Scan, told that the operation could not be conducted under such circumstances as the stone was found in both kidneys of the donor. The Hospital had refunded the remaining amount of Rs. 2,44,170/-, out of the deposited amount i.e., after deducting the treatment expenses incurred.The complainant, who was shocked and confused over the doctor's refusal to conduct the transplantation, was discharged in the night of 25.04.2016 without conducting the transplantation surgery.It was argued by the patient's counsel that all the required tests of the donor had already been conducted on the recommendations of the treating doctor, and they included Ultrasound KUB, Renal Function Study, and other tests on 04.03.2016 and CT Scan, Culture Report tests on 15.03.2016. Allegedly, the treating doctor had issued the certification of medical fitness to the donor on 18.03.2016 after going through all the tests. Despite this, the doctor did not disclose the fact of any hindrance or danger in the kidney transplant and refused to conduct the transplantation due to stones in the kidneys of the donor. The patient alleged that the said act was not appropriate on the part of the hospital and doctor, and it amounted to an act of ‘negligence’, ‘deficiency in service’, and ‘unfair trade practice’ on their part.Therefore, filing the consumer complaint, the patient asked for compensation of Rs 15 lakh, a refund of the amount of Rs.72,609/- charged for treatment, along with interest and litigation expenses.On the other hand, the treating hospital and doctor submitted that the surgery was not conducted after noticing the stones in both the kidneys of the donor. So in that situation, due to the risky affair of transplantation to the life of both the Complainant and Donor, a decision was taken not to transplant the kidney of the donor having stones in the kidneys, to the Complainant. They argued that the decision not to conduct the transplantation was taken in the interest of the Complainant and the Donor's life.It was further submitted that in the right kidney of the Donor, multiple hyper-dense foci-suggestive of calculi was seen in the mid and lower calyx ...
