2022 (11) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Post operative medical negligence and follow-up care - Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - HELD THAT - Taking note of the fact that treating doctors, OP Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are medical experts in the field of nephrology and so far as OP No. 6 hospital where the patient was admitted for transplantation was duly registered under the Act, 1994 and all post operative medical care protocol available at the command of the Respondents was administered to the patient, still his physical condition deteriorated and finally he could not be saved, which is really unfortunate, but there cannot be a legal recourse to what is being acceptable to the destiny. The Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the Respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining the complaint filed by the Appellants. In consequence thereof, the judgment of the Commission does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the nursing home/hospital where the patient was admitted for post-operative care, was not registered under the provisions of the Act 1994. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the Scheme of the Act 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. The hospitals where the procedure of transplantation is undertaken are to be registered in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1994, but for postoperative care, particularly after the patient being discharged from the hospital where the procedure of transplantation has taken place, we have not come across any provision under the Act, 1994 where such hospitals are required to be registered under the Act 1994. There are no fault in the reasoning of the Commission, as a result, the appeal is without substance and deserves to be dismissed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Post-operative medical negligence.
2. Follow-up care negligence.
3. Qualification and expertise of the treating doctors.
4. Registration of the hospital for post-operative care under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Post-operative Medical Negligence:
The appellants alleged that the death of the deceased was due to post-operative medical negligence following a successful kidney transplant. The deceased experienced pain in the left forearm, cellulitis, abscess, severe headache, loss of vision, and vomiting, which were allegedly not adequately addressed by the treating doctors. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the Commission) dismissed the complaint, concluding that the medical care provided was adequate and the unfortunate death could not be attributed to medical negligence.

2. Follow-up Care Negligence:
The appellants contended that the doctors failed to provide proper follow-up care after the discharge of the patient. Despite complaints of pain and subsequent complications, the doctors allegedly did not take the necessary actions to address these issues. The Commission, however, found that the patient was consistently monitored and treated as an outdoor patient, and the medical care provided was in line with the standards expected from qualified professionals.

3. Qualification and Expertise of the Treating Doctors:
The respondents, including OP Nos. 1, 2, and 5, were qualified nephrologists with extensive experience in kidney transplantation. The Commission noted that the doctors were well-qualified and had performed numerous successful transplants. The appellants' expert witnesses, Dr. Ashok Chopra and Dr. Sophia Ahmed, were not specialists in nephrology or kidney transplantation, which weakened the appellants' case. The Commission relied on the testimonies of the respondents' expert witnesses, Dr. S. Sundar and Dr. Arun Kumar, who confirmed that the medical care provided was appropriate.

4. Registration of the Hospital for Post-operative Care:
The appellants argued that the hospital where the patient received post-operative care was not registered under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The Court clarified that while hospitals performing transplantation procedures must be registered, there is no requirement under the Act for hospitals providing post-operative care to be registered. Therefore, the argument regarding the hospital's registration was not upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, stating that the treating doctors provided the best possible medical care and followed appropriate medical protocols. The unfortunate death of the patient was not due to medical negligence but rather an outcome of the patient's medical condition. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that medical professionals should not be held liable for outcomes beyond their control when they have acted with reasonable skill and competence.