Parties: Purushottam Pareeek vs Doctors
Court: National Commission, Delhi
Date of Decision: 17.03.2023
Specialization: Anaesthetist
Facts in a Nutshell:
The deceased wife of the complainant troubled by recurrent vaginal bleeding for six months, sought advice from Dr. R. (OP-1), a gynecologist. After a thorough examination, she was diagnosed with Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (DUB) and chronic appendicitis. To alleviate her suffering, doctor recommended an abdominal hysterectomy.
Before proceeding, (OP-2) (AICL member), an anesthetist, conducted a pre-anesthetic check-up. Despite a history of occasional asthma attacks, the patient wasn’t on bronchodilators or nebulization at the time. Ops warned the patient and her husband of potential risks due to her asthma, ensuring informed consent was signed. The surgery was performed but the patient suddenly struggled to breathe—a bronchial spasm. Recognizing the emergency, OPs acted swiftly, employing all available measures to stabilize her. Yet, despite their expertise and effort, the patient’s condition worsened. Hypoxia, a lack of oxygen supply, set in, leading to unconsciousness.
Realizing the gravity of the situation, the doctors informed the family and arranged for her immediate transfer to another hospital.
At the new hospital, the patient was treated extensively but never regained consciousness. A month after the surgery, she succumbed to septic shock, a consequence of her asthma complications, not the surgery itself. The family’s grief turned into accusations, alleging that the doctors operated without proper consent and caused her death through negligence.
The Allegations:
The patient’s family claimed:
- Consent was neither informed nor adequate.
- The doctors unnecessarily removed the appendix.
- Negligence during anesthesia and surgery caused her coma and eventual death.
- A police complaint, a consumer forum case, and a complaint to the Medical Council were filed. The medical board’s initial opinion hinted at negligence, fueling the legal battles.
The Defense:
The doctors presented their defense with detailed evidence:
1. The patient’s diagnosis of DUB with chronic appendicitis justified the surgical approach.
- Risks linked to her asthma were clearly explained, and her husband signed the consent form.
- During surgery, the patient was conscious and stable until the bronchial spasm occurred.
- Emergency steps were taken promptly, but the bronchial spasm proved unresponsive, leading to hypoxia.
- The hospital where she later died confirmed her death was due to septic shock, not surgical negligence.
They emphasized that the patient’s condition was managed with utmost care, and her death was an unfortunate outcome of her pre-existing asthma rather than a fault in their procedure.
The Judgment:
After reviewing the Operation Theatre (OT) notes and hearing both sides, the court found no evidence of negligence. The doctors had acted in line with medical standards, and the consent process was thorough. The patient’s death, while tragic, was not a result of malpractice but rather an unpredictable escalation of her chronic condition.
The complaint was dismissed, affirming the doctors’ diligence.
Reflection. The case highlighted the delicate balance of trust in the doctor-patient relationship and the unpredictability of medical outcomes. It served as a reminder that even with the best intentions and expertise, not all battles can be won. For the grieving family, closure may remain elusive, but justice was guided by facts and fairness.
