Hospital ordered to give compensation to patient

By Our Special Correspondent

BANGALORE, AUG. 13. A patient, who was made to undergo an unnecessary hip-joint replacement surgery at a private nursing home at Jayanagar in the City, has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) here.

The complainant, Mr. K.S.Sridhar (41) met with a serious road accident when his scooter was hit by an autorickshaw. He was shifted to the nursing home where the surgeon, Dr. R.Rajkumar, -- the respondent in the case -- advised a hip-joint replacement.

Though the surgery was conducted, Mr. Sridhar developed severe and persistent pain in the hip joint. Since there was no proper explanation from the surgeon, he consulted some other orthopaedic surgeons in Bangalore. They told him that the hip-joint replacement operation was unnecessary for him and it was conducted only on persons aged 60 years or above. A senior orthopaedic surgeon stated that the severe pain and discomfort was due to the ``failed himo-orthoplasty of the left hip'' and that he would have to undergo another surgery, which would cost about Rs. 75,000.

According to him, the normal treatment for Mr. Sridhar's injury was an operation for internal fixation and not a hip-joint replacement. The complainant also found from authoritative medical books that implanted metal hip-joints could fail within 10 years of implantation. This would need a second replacement surgery with more trauma than the first operation since it involved breaking the surgical cement used to fix the original implant. Good bone tissues would have to be removed in the process and this could result in further weakening of the hip joint. Because of these reasons, orthopaedic surgeons did not usually perform the replacement surgery on patients below the age of 60.

The commission observed in its ruling that there was no truth in the statement of Dr. Rajkumar that he had performed the operation on instructions from the patient. Being a layman, the complainant was not supposed to have any knowledge of the type of operation to be conducted. It was proved that the hip-joint replacement surgery was not the best remedy in this case and internal fixation with nails and screws should have been adopted.

The commission also commented about the ``lackadaisical attitude'' of Dr. R.Rajkumar, who had ``brought lifelong misery on the complainant.'' The commission said: ``The doctor chose to abstain from defending himself despite being served notices and when he totally ignores the process of a court of law, certain legal consequences are bound to follow.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Plea against building in park dismissed
Next     : Bureaucracy is unresponsive: CM