The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) cleared a gynecologist of medical malpractice in a recent Lucknow case involving an event during a cesarean section procedure. The case was complicated; it involved claims that a surgical mop was left inside the patient’s body, ensuing medical issues, inquiries from many medical bodies, and court cases.
The crux of the matter lay in determining whether the gynecologist was negligent in leaving the mop inside the patient’s abdomen and if the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) by the State Commission was justified.The patient underwent a cesarean section at Dr M. Khan Hospital in Bareilly, performed by the gynecologist in question. Subsequently, she experienced abdominal pain and underwent further medical procedures, including surgeries at Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute (SGPGI), Lucknow, where the surgical mop was discovered and removed.
A number of medical boards were established to look into the tragedy, although their findings were not entirely definitive. In spite of this, the gynecologist was deemed negligent by the UP Medical Council, the Medical Council of India (MCI), and finally the National Medical Commission (NMC). The patient’s testimony, the discovery of the mop covered in feces, and the hospital’s purported deficiency of basic amenities all played a role in this ruling.
Based on the res ipsa loquitur principle, the State Commission affirmed the verdict of medical negligence and ordered the defendants to compensate the patient. Nevertheless, the NCDRC reversed this ruling, emphasizing a number of important issues.
It first questioned the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, highlighting the need for carelessness to be proven through a combination of unambiguous evidence and strict adherence to medical guidelines. The commission saw variations in the size and form of the mop that was retrieved as well as the absence of solid proof connecting it to the disputed surgery.
Subsequently, the panel expressed disapproval for the UP Medical Council’s findings, contending that it did not provide enough justification to prove civil liability for medical malpractice. It emphasized the lack of authoritative views and solid proof connecting the gynecologist’s surgery and the mop.
The commission also took into account the patient’s medical background, including prior surgeries, and stressed the need for care when blaming carelessness purely on the result of unfavorable treatment outcomes. It stated that concerns regarding procedural fairness were aroused by the MCI’s judgment, which was made right before the appellant’s suspension was set to expire.The lack of convincing evidence, the dubious application of legal concepts, and procedural flaws in the earlier verdicts were the main points of contention in the NCDRC’s decision. In cases of medical negligence, it underlined the significance of careful inquiry, expert opinions, and conformity to established legal criteria.
SOURCE:
SARKARI DOCTOR
