Pranav B Prem

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member, and Saroj Yadav, Member, held a doctor liable for medical negligence that resulted in severe scalp injuries to a newborn during delivery. While upholding the finding of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission regarding the negligence, the NCDRC reduced the compensation amount from Rs. 30 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs.

Also Read: NCDRC Modifies Relief Granted Against Barnala Builders; Confirms Deficiency in Service But Reduces Interest and Sets Aside Additional Compensation

The complainant, K. Sreelatha, was admitted to the hospital of the appellant, Dr. P. Yashodhara, in Nellore during the advanced stage of her pregnancy on 16.04.2011. On the following day, she delivered a male child through a forceps-assisted delivery performed by the appellant. The complainant alleged that as a result of the doctor’s negligence in handling the delivery, the child suffered crush injuries and necrosis to the scalp, along with detachment of the right ear pinna. These injuries caused brain damage, rendering the child mentally disabled.

It was contended by the complainant that despite her specific request for a caesarean section due to obstructed labour and the baby’s weight of 3.6 kg as indicated by ultrasound, the doctor proceeded with forceps delivery. The complainant further argued that the consent taken for the forceps delivery was not informed, as the signatures were obtained on a pre-printed, vague form without any proper disclosure of risks involved in the procedure.

After delivery, the baby was referred to Kanchi Kamakoti Child’s Trust Hospital in Chennai for further treatment. The doctors there confirmed that the injuries sustained by the child were due to improper handling during delivery. The complainant also submitted that a sum of approximately Rs. 4,00,000 was spent towards medical expenses, and bills amounting to Rs. 72,530 were produced before the Commission.

The appellant doctor, however, denied all allegations of negligence. She maintained that the baby was healthy at birth with a good APGAR score and that no injuries were noticed during the post-delivery examination conducted by a paediatrician, Dr. P. Ramadoss. The appellant further argued that the findings in the discharge summary of the second hospital indicated complications like subgaleal haemorrhage and necrotizing fasciitis, which were secondary infections that developed during subsequent treatment and not during the delivery process itself. She also claimed that valid and voluntary consent for forceps delivery had been taken from the complainant and that no undue influence was exerted.

Upon reviewing the materials on record, the NCDRC referred to the discharge summary of the Kanchi Kamakoti Child’s Trust Hospital, which noted the presence of injuries such as subgaleal bleed, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, and perichondritis of both ears. These injuries, according to the Commission, indicated the occurrence of trauma during the forceps delivery. The Commission also found the consent form obtained by the appellant to be vague and routine in nature, lacking proper information necessary to constitute informed consent.

The Commission observed that although it could not decisively link the subsequent mental disability of the child to the delivery injuries due to lack of specific evidence on record, the fact that the child suffered scalp injuries and ear damage necessitating further treatment at another hospital was undeniable. Thus, the finding of medical negligence against the appellant doctor by the State Commission was upheld.

Regarding compensation, the NCDRC noted that while the family suffered mental agony during their stay of over one and a half months in Chennai for the child’s treatment, the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs awarded by the State Commission towards this head was excessive, especially in the absence of clear justification in the State Commission’s order. The NCDRC deemed that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs would be appropriate compensation for the negligence and resultant mental agony suffered by the complainant and her family.

Accordingly, the NCDRC modified the compensation awarded by the State Commission and directed the appellant to pay the following amounts to the complainant:

• Rs. 72,530 towards treatment expenses, as supported by bills.

• Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for medical negligence and mental agony.

• Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs.

These amounts are to be paid within eight weeks from the date of the order, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. In case of default, the interest rate shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum for the same period.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Payment Made During Pendency Of CIRP Application Cannot Be Considered For Calculating Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC

In conclusion, the NCDRC confirmed the doctor’s liability for medical negligence but found sufficient grounds to reduce the compensation awarded by the State Commission, balancing the established negligence with the extent of the injury and suffering.

Appearance

For the Appellant: Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate (VC)

Cause Title: Dr. P Yashodhara V. K. Sreelatha

Case No: FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/628/2019

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Binoy Kumar [Presiding Member], Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav [Member]

[Read/Download order]