The court found the Scan Centre’s argument regarding the use of low dosages of anesthesia unconvincing. The lack of supporting evidence, such as an affidavit from the anesthetist, weakened their claims. The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to refute allegations in cases of medical negligence.
Chennai: Recently, The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Thiruvallur recently found a Scan Centre in Chennai responsible for medical negligence. They administered an overdose of anesthesia during an MRI scan, leading to the patient suffering a cardiac arrest and brain death. As a result, the court ordered the Scan Centre to compensate the deceased patient’s family with Rs 15 lakh, along with an additional Rs 10,000 to cover litigation expenses.
READ ALSO: Orissa High Court Criticizes Cuttack Police and DMET Over Medical Negligence Case
Background:
In 2008 when the patient, who suffered from Cervical Spondylosis, Arnold Chiari Malformation type 1, and Syrinx C1-T1, underwent a minor surgery at New Hope Medical Centre. The patient was advised to undergo MRI scans to assess the syrinx, with the first scan scheduled for February 19, 2009, at Aarthi Scans.
Allegedly, during the MRI scan at the Scan Center, the patient received a heavy dose of anesthesia, resulting in cardiac-respiratory arrest and subsequent brain death. The patient was then transferred to St. Isabel’s Hospital for further treatment.
The wife and children of the deceased patient filed a complaint with the District Consumer Court, alleging medical negligence on the part of both the Scan Center and the treating hospital. They claimed that the Scan Center did not provide details about the treatment or the drug administered intentionally.
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court Summons Authorities Over Medical Negligence at Yerwada Prison
The Scan Center argued that the anesthesia used for MRI scans is administered in low dosages and that the patient was immediately attended to when complications arose. They also stated that the patient had pre-existing conditions and had been receiving treatment for many years, allowing the illness to progress.
The scan center argued
“According to medical journals and books on neurosurgery, genetic neuro deformities persist even after surgical intervention. They emphasized that neurological dysfunction remains severe, with surgical results often being poor. Pre-operative symptoms, such as upper-extremity muscle atrophy and ambulatory dysfunction, were exacerbated, and post-operative MR imaging revealed spinal atrophy along with complications, resulting in neural deficits and prolonged morbidity,” the argument stated.
The treating hospital refuted the medical negligence allegations, emphasizing that there was no diagnosis of brain death during the patient’s treatment at their facility.
The Consumer Forum noted
Scan Center failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit from the anesthetist, to disprove the allegations of improper dosage of anesthesia. It also stated that the patient’s condition after the surgery could not be considered the reason for the unfortunate event during the MRI scan.
Isabel Hospital, the second opposing party, rejected the accusations of medical negligence, asserting that it was not responsible for the anesthesia administered to the patient. They disputed the complainant’s claim that David experienced brain death, stating it was incorrect.
According to the hospital, the determination of brain death must be certified by a neurosurgeon and a neurophysician, neither of whom diagnosed David with brain death during his treatment from February 19, 2009, to March 4, 2009.
Based on the evidence presented, the Consumer Court held the Scan Center liable for medical negligence while finding no negligence on the part of the treating hospital.
The court invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur, as the patient went into the MRI scan in a good state and came out with cardiac arrest, resulting in death.
The Commission highlighted that apart from presenting the referral and consent letters, the scan center failed to provide any other evidence to refute allegations regarding improper anesthesia dosage resulting in cardiac respiratory arrest and brain death.
Although they referenced medical literature on neurosurgery and syringomyelia, they couldn’t establish a connection between the administered anesthesia and the patient’s condition. Consequently, the surgery undergone by the patient couldn’t be deemed the cause of the unfortunate events during the MRI scan.
Moreover, the Commission pointed out that the DIL form signed by the patient’s family stated a diagnosis of hypoxic encephalopathy. This indicated that the patient, who initially visited the scan center for an MRI scan, developed hypoxic encephalopathy due to the actions of the scan center.
The Commission noted that the scan center failed to establish that the surgery performed at New Hope Medical Centre for Cervical Spondylosis, Arnold Chiari Malformation type-1, Syrinx C1-T1 was the root cause of the cardiac arrest and brain death experienced by the deceased during the MRI Scan.
Regarding the non-joinder of the first hospital where the patient was treated in 2008, the Commission stated that since no allegations were raised against the said Medical Centre regarding treatment or surgery, and no connection was proven between the treatment at New Hope Medical Centre and the cardiac arrest and brain death suffered by the patient, the non-joinder of New Hope Medical Centre was not fatal to the case.
Consequently, the consumer court found the scan center liable for medical negligence but opined that there was no negligence by the treating hospital.
Based on these considerations, the Commission held the scan center responsible for the cardiac arrest and brain death of the patient. It directed the scan center to compensate the family of the deceased with Rs. 13,00,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. As the complaint against the treating hospital was dismissed, no medical expenses were ordered to be reimbursed to the complainants.
The court ordered the Scan Center to pay Rs 15 lakh as compensation to the deceased patient’s family. It also awarded Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses. However, the complaint against the treating hospital was dismissed, and no reimbursement of medical expenses was granted.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
