Ahmedabad: A hernia operation that was expected to take just 15 minutes stretched for over two hours, ending with an intestinal perforation, peritonitis and, a week later, the death of a 58-year-old Surat man. Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has now directed the doctor and hospital involved to pay Rs 65.5 lakh to his family, with 8% interest.Surat resident Hetendra Parmar was admitted to Aaram Hospital on Feb 20, 2016, for hernia surgery performed by Dr Jitendra Raja. After the procedure, Parmar suffered excruciating abdominal pain, vomiting and swelling. Despite complaints, Dr Raja allegedly failed to properly investigate his condition.As his condition deteriorated, Parmar was shifted to another hospital, where he underwent another surgery. Doctors found that his intestine had been perforated during the earlier procedure, causing leakage, pus formation and peritonitis. Parmar died a week later.His family’s advocate Sandip Shah told the commission that the postmortem report and subsequent forensic investigation linked the death to intestinal perforation and peritonitis. He argued that the death resulted directly from negligent treatment and improper management during the hernia surgery.Shah also pointed to an FIR against the doctor under Section 304A of the IPC for causing death by negligence, as well as the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) decision to restrain Dr Raja from practising medicine for one year.The doctor and hospital denied negligence, saying Parmar had been examined and treated according to prevailing medical practice and that reasonable care, skill and diligence had been exercised. The insurer also denied liability, citing non-compliance with policy conditions.The commission relied on findings of the MCI Ethics Committee, which noted that the case history was not written by the treating doctor, investigations were not properly conducted or signed by competent pathologists, and the doctor’s approach was casual.The committee also noted that the anaesthetist had refused anaesthesia because Parmar’s stomach was full. The doctor then changed the procedure to local anaesthesia and proceeded. The discharge certificate, however, mentioned use of both forms of anaesthesia, while the doctor had stated that spinal anaesthesia had been refused.The commission observed, “Considering the total circumstances, the committee observed that the procedure smacks of adhocism, non-application of mind, casual approach and also lack of behaviour and skills that is expected of a surgeon.”While awarding compensation with 8% interest, the commission said, “A doctor is not liable merely because the treatment did not produce the desired result; liability arises where the doctor lacks the requisite skill or fails to exercise reasonable competence.”
