Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.       Brief facts of the case are that in June, 1994, the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the patient) visited SS Hospital at Institute of Medical Sciences, BHU, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1) for pain in his left knee. Earlier on 02.06.1992 and 22.06.1994, X-rays of left knee were done, which showed some loose body inside the knee joint. Dr. S. C. Goel, the Professor of Orthopaedics (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2) examined the patient and suggested Arthroscopic removal of the loose bodies. The Complainant alleged that instead of Arthroscopy, the Opposite Party No. 2 performed open operation (Arthrotomy) on 28.07.1994. Even after the operation, the patient did not show any improvement. On 17.09.1994, another X-ray of left knee was taken which revealed the loose bodies were still present. Thereafter, the patient consulted Dr. A. K. Singh at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and finally underwent    Arthroscopy procedure at Mumbai by the hands of Dr. Anant Joshi on 29.11.1994. He continued follow up advice of Dr. Joshi till 04.01.1995 and gradually his left knee started functioning normally.

3.       Being aggrieved by the alleged careless and negligent treatment of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint (CC No. 147 of 1995) before the District Forum, Varanasi.

4.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties. In their reply, they submitted that no fee was charged from the patient but the patient chose private ward with his own consent. No assurance of complete cure was given beforehand. It was advised by the Opposite Party No. 2 that if the Arthroscopy was not successful, surgical operation would have to be done. After the operation only one or two loose bodies remained in the joint space. The patient was at fault in not doing physical exercise as advised.

7.       Being aggrieved by the majority Order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

8.       We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the entire material on record inter alia the Original Record from the District Forum.

9.       The crux of the matter is whether the treating doctor was wrong, who performed Arthroscopy (laparoscopy) and Arthrotomy (open operation) for removal of loose bodies in the left knee joint of the patient. We gave our thoughtful consideration, it is an admitted fact that Dr. S. C. Goel, advised for Arthroscopic removal of loose bodies in the knee joint, however during procedure, he preferred open operation i.e. Arthrotomy. As per the operative notes, it was the case of degenerative changes in the left knee joint and the four loose bodies were seen during Arthroscopy and their sizes were 1.5, 1.25, 1 & 1 cm.  A large body of more than 5 mm size is difficult to be removed by Arthroscopy. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred open surgery. Moreover, admittedly, the patient before operation was informed that if the Arthroscopy was not successful, open surgery would be done.  We find the Consent Form consists of all the ingredients of a valid informed Consent.  Thus, in our considered view, there was no negligence during the treatment of the patient at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital.

 Just because a person suffers a bad outcome from medical treatment, does not mean that they have an automatic right to sue for compensation. A medical error is only considered "negligent" if the healthcare practitioner has failed to take "reasonable care". 

13.     In the instant case, it is apparent from the Medical Record that the four bodies were more than 5mm size and could not be removed by Arthroscopy. It was the misconception of the patient that despite the advice for Arthroscopy, the Opposite Party No. 2 performed open surgery.