(18.232.56.9)
Users online: 1712    [ij] [ij] [ij] 
Email id
 

Year : 2022, Volume : 20, Issue : 1and2
First page : ( 17) Last page : ( 24)
Print ISSN : 0973-1970. Online ISSN : 0974-4487. Published online : 2022  17.
Article DOI : 10.5958/0974-4487.2022.00003.7

When a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy becomes a Case of Medical Negligence? Supreme Court of India

Yadav Mukesh1,*, Bansal Mukesh Kumar2

1Professor and Principal, Department of Forensic Medicine, Rani Durgawati Medical College, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, India

2Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Rani Durgawati Medical College, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, India

*Corresponding author email id: drmukesh65@yahoo.co.in

Online Published on 17 September, 2022.

Received:  28  ,  2022; Accepted:  21  ,  2022.

Abstract

It is now well-established that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a two to three times higher risk of bile duct injury (BDI) in comparison to open cholecystectomy. Moreover, BDI during cholecystectomy is a common cause of litigation of medical negligence against the surgeon. The complainant brought a medical negligence action against the surgeon Dr. Gurmit Singh (OP-1) and the OP-3. On 13.07.2004 the complainant’s wife approached R-1, a laparoscopic surgeon at Preet Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital, R-2 for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Due to a serious condition, the patient was shifted to DMC Ludhiana where she was treated under R-3. The complainant discussed the cause of death and the need for autopsy with R-3, however, he was told that the patient died due to intraoperative injuries to the colon and bile duct resulting in Peritonitis, Peritoneal Collection, Septicaemia and Multi-Organ failure. It is in the above-referred circumstances that the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the SCDRC, Punjab on 14.02.2005 for monetary compensation quantified at Rs. 62,85,160 from the Respondents for negligence and deficiency of services. The SCDRC after considering the evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and held R-1 and 2 negligent and exonerated R-3 and 4. R-1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs. 1544000 jointly and severally and Rs. 10000 as costs. According to NCDRC, there was no negligence on the part of respondents. Supreme Court opined that the interest of justice would be subserved if R-1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainants a total amount of Rs. 2500000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of SCDRC order as compensation.

Top

Keywords

Surgeon, Ethics Committee, Medical record, Deficiency of service.

Top

  
║ Site map ║ Privacy Policy ║ Copyright ║ Terms & Conditions ║ Page Rank Tool
598,177,212 visitor(s) since 30th May, 2005.
All rights reserved. Site designed and maintained by DIVA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD..
Note: Please use Internet Explorer (6.0 or above). Some functionalities may not work in other browsers.