Here is a case of a young boy, who became the victim of a doctor’s negligence and lost one of his legs. First he suffered injuries on account of an accident, but the injuries inflicted by the doctors were far more severe. In fact, as doctors, they were supposed to mend his broken limb and give him relief. But by ignoring a basic fact — a possible vascular injury in such cases — the doctors were responsible for the boy losing his leg. The case, that came up before the apex consumer court some time ago, makes for a very sad read. It also highlights the need for medical professionals to take the care that is required of them while dealing with patients. But the case also underscores the need for consumer courts to be more liberal when it comes to awarding damages.
On the morning of May 11, 2000, young P. Subhash was rushed to Shridevi Hospital and Shridevi Diagnostic Research Centre, Tumkur, Karnataka, with leg injuries suffered in a road accident. There the orthopaedic surgeons examined the boy, got his leg X-ray and CT scan done and put a POP slab support to the fractured leg. But what they did not do was to treat him immediately for vascular injury that he had suffered. It was only on May 14, when his toes had gone brown and he had lost sensation in them, that they ordered a sound doppler test and on May 15, advised his parents to take him to a bigger hospital in Bangalore. But by then, it was too late.
The orthopaedic surgeon who examined the boy in Bangalore told the shocked parents that gangrene had set in and in order to save the boy, his left leg had to be amputated. The doctor also told them that if only the vascular injuries had been treated immediately after the accident, this would not have happened and his leg would have been saved. Eventually, the boy’s leg was amputated on May 19.
In response to the boy’s complaint, the consumer court at the district level held the Tumkur hospital and two of its doctors guilty of negligence. However, it awarded only Rs 1.75 lakh as compensation, while the boy had pleaded for Rs 5 lakh. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission increased the compensation, but by only Rs 50,000, with an interest of 12 per cent calculated from the date of the complaint in 2000. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission too agreed with the lower forums that the doctors were negligent, but unfortunately did not think that the boy deserved a better compensation (revision petition no. 1991 of 2004 ).