- The bench - B. N. Aggarwal, G. S. Singhvi, Harjeet Singh Bedi
- The Petitioner/ Appellant - Nizam Institute of Medical Science
- The Plaintiff/ Respondent - Prashant S. Dhanaka and others.
Issue
Whether Dr. P. V. Satyanarayanaand Nizam Institute of Medical Research liable for the charges framed against them for medical negligence causing irreparable damage to a 20-year-old engineering student? Whether consent given by the parents for excision biopsy is valid for completely removing the tumour mass from the ribs?
The contentions-
Appellant- The NIMS facility as well as the doctors denied all the charges against them in complaint and pleaded that reasonable care was taken while treating Prashant. Prashant was suffering through a recurring fever for which he visited the evening OPD at NIMS where he was reffered to Dr. P V Satyanarayana, who is a cardio-thoracic surgeon in the facility. Doctor had advised an excision biopsy for deciding further course of treatment. In furtherance to that,Dr.Saatyanarayana carried out a surgery wherein he completely removed the tumour from Prashant’s ribs. A valid consent from respondent and his parents was gained before initiation of the surgery.
Respondent- Prashant is a 20-year-old engineering student who was admitted in the NIMS facility for a surgery after which he lost complete control over the lower limbs of his body. Prashant’s father has alleged Dr. Satyanarayana and other doctors at Nizam Institute of Medical Science for negligent treatment of his son. He alleged that the hospital didn’t conduct the required pre-operative tests and consequences of excision biopsy was not consulted with them before performing the surgery. They also pleaded that the surgery had neurological implications but there was no such opinion sought before surgery. He also pleaded that their consent was taken only for excision biopsy, but Dr.Satyanarayana carried out a complete excision removal surgery causing damage to coastal blood vessels which lead to paraplegia. In the complaint report, he also alleged that the hospital showed negligence in post-operative care of the patient as he developed bedsores.
Final Judgement-
The court held Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and its doctors liable for the charges framed against them for negligence. The court found that the surgery had neurological implications and it should have been conducted under the presence of a neuro-surgeon. A neuro-surgeon’s guidance at the time of the surgery might have avoided the risk of Prashant getting paralyzed for life. The consent of the parents was found to be valid as the implications were clearly prescribed beforehand. The court ordered the hospital to pay a compensation of 1 crore 5 thousand rupees to Prashant and his family which is the highest paid medical negligence settlement.
