Performing Major Surgery Without Necessary Infrastructure Is Medical Negligence: Hyderabad District Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad bench comprising B Uma Venkata Subba, President and C. Lakshmi Prasanna, Member has held Vitality Health Services liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service which led to the death of the complainant's wife. A compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs along with Rs. 50,000 as legal expenses was awarded to the complainant and his two children.

Brief facts:

The complainant's wife was diagnosed with Adenomyosis of uterus and underwent Hysterectomy surgery and Oophorectomy in Vitality Health Services ('Hospital'). Immediately after the surgery, the complainant was informed that his wife suffered a stroke during the surgery and there is an emergency condition. The complainant was further informed that his wife has stopped breathing and has to be shifted to a super speciality hospital since there was no ventilator available at the current hospital. Hence, the complainant's wife was shifted to Wellness Hospital ('Second hospital') with Bain's circuit self assisting ventilator. The transit time took more than 30 minutes resulting in cardio-pulmonary complications which led to the demise of the complainant's wife. Consequently, a police complaint was lodged by the complainant with Ram Gopalapuram Police Station against the doctors of the hospital for negligently performing the surgery which led to the death of his wife.

Pursuant to the complaint, the Station House Officer (SHO) addressed a letter to district medical and health officer, Hyderabad asking the officer to furnish some information to carry out the investigation. Thereafter, an enquiry team was constituted by the district medical officer which submitted a detailed report within 7 days. The complainant requested the district medical officer to submit the enquiry team report to the SHO to enable him to take necessary action.

Subsequently, the district medical officer called for an expert opinion on the medical negligence wherein it was mentioned that the procedure was uneventful and there was delayed recovery of patient from anesthesia. Accordingly, an expert opinion was obtained from the Head of Department of anesthesia wherein it was opined that there was a delay in recovery due to long duration of surgery under laparoscopy and metabolic derangement. It was then suggested to take opinion from the Head of Neurology. Thus, the matter was referred from one department to the other without any effective action.

Aggrieved by the inaction of the district medical officer and SHO, the complainant approached the Hon'ble Telangana High Court by way of filing a writ petition and the court passed an order in favour of the complainant directing the medical officer to answer the queries sought for and SHO was also directed to take appropriate action.

Despite specific directions by the Hon'ble High Court, no action was taken by the medical officer and the SHO. Thus, the complainant filed a complaint with the district consumer commission, Hyderabad.

Submissions of complainant:

It was submitted that the doctors were not competent enough to perform the surgery and lacked necessary skills. It was further contended that there was no stretcher and ambulance arrangement at the hospital due to which the complainant's wife could not be taken to the second hospital on time. It was argued that no attempt was made to revive the complainant's wife once she was declared dead by switching off the mechanical ventilator.

Submissions of the hospital:

The hospital contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It was argued that materials were tampered by the complainant for which proceedings must be initiated under section 464 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Observations of the commission:

The bench, on the basis of expert opinion reports and statements and facts, observed that a major surgery like Hysterectomy should not have been conducted by the hospital under general anesthesia and in the absence of mechanical ventilator and ICU infrastructure which is necessarily required for post operative surgeries. It was further observed that since no ambulance facilities were available at the hospital, the complainant's wife was shifted to the second hospital in an ambulance with Bain's circuit self-assisting ventilator leading to a three- hour delay in providing life saving ventilator support. Thus, it was held that there was deficiency and negligence on the part of the Vitality Health Services hospital and its doctors.

The bench then proceeded to observe that after the complainant's wife reached the second hospital i.e Wellness Hospital, she was immediately put on ventilator support and was treated with necessary medications. However she could not be revived despite giving atropine and adrenaline injections and continuous CPR for 30 minutes. Thus, it was held that there was no evidence to establish medical negligence and deficiency on the part of Wellness Hospital.

Hence, the complaint was allowed partly with the following reliefs:

1. An amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid to the complainant and his two children.
2. An amount of Rs. 50,000 to be paid towards legal expenses.
3. The complaint was dismissed against Wellness Hospital.

Case Title: K. Ravi Kumar vs M/s Vitality Health Services & Ors.

Case No. : C.C No. 347/2023

Advocate for Complainant: Ekant Hiranandani

Advocate for Opposite parties: Shanthi Bhushan Rao

Date of Judgment: 17.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order