Chandigarh: SCDRC Exonerates Hospital and Neurosurgeon in Spine Treatment Case

Case Background

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) of Punjab recently ruled that there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service regarding the spine treatment of a patient, leading to the exoneration of a hospital and neurosurgeon based in Ludhiana. This case dates back to 2013, when the complainant presented with back pain, bilateral lower limb pain, and weakness in the right foot. He was diagnosed with “PIVD L5-S1 with Grade-I Spondylolisthesis.”

Surgical Intervention

On May 28, 2013, the patient was admitted to the hospital for treatment. After a thorough examination, he underwent transforminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery on the same day by a senior consultant. Post-surgery, the patient reported pain in the right limb, prompting a CT scan that indicated a mild misplacement of the L5 screw. The screw was repositioned on May 29, 2013; however, the patient did not experience improvement and was discharged on June 1, 2013.

Postoperative Complications

Fifteen days following the initial surgery, the complainant returned to the hospital with persistent backache and presented an MRI conducted externally. The MRI showed postoperative changes and artifacts from the spacer. Despite conservative therapy, the patient’s condition did not improve, leading to a decision for re-exploration and a second surgery on June 21, 2013. During this procedure, it was confirmed that there was no pressure on the thecal sac or nerve root, and additional fixation of the L-4 vertebra was performed.

Patient’s Claims and Complaint

After the second surgery, the patient reported an improvement and continued with physiotherapy. Following his discharge on July 4, 2013, he approached the Chief Medical Officer of Ludhiana and the Punjab Health and Welfare Ministry, alleging medical negligence by the hospital and surgeon. A committee was formed to evaluate the injuries he suffered, which subsequently referred the matter to the Punjab Medical Council.

The complainant later experienced severe pain and weakness in his right foot, claiming that the case summary provided by the hospital differed from what was given to him. He filed a consumer complaint seeking Rs. 19,20,000 with interest and litigation costs, alleging mental distress due to negligence.

Hospital and Doctor’s Defense

The hospital and surgeon contended that all necessary procedures were followed and denied any negligence. A medical board established to assess the complainant’s condition reported that the complications were common and could occur even in proficient hands. The hospital’s response emphasized that the fibrosis at the operative site was a normal physiological occurrence and thus, they were not liable for the claims made by the complainant.

District Commission Ruling

After reviewing the records and hearing arguments from both sides, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. The complainant subsequently appealed to the State Commission, arguing that the District Commission overlooked the multiple surgeries performed and the ongoing pain he experienced.

State Consumer Court Findings

The State Consumer Court focused on whether the hospital and doctor were negligent in their treatment of the complainant’s spine issue. It confirmed that the initial diagnosis of “PIVD L5/S1 with grade I spondylolisthesis” was accurate, and the surgery followed proper protocols. The SCDRC examined medical literature on spondylolisthesis and noted that the complications faced by the complainant were typical for such procedures.

The Commission also reviewed the expert opinions from the PGI medical board, which supported the hospital’s stance. The complainant’s challenges to these opinions were dismissed, as the Commission acknowledged the expertise of the medical professionals involved.

Conclusion

The State Consumer Court concluded that the complainant did not present any evidence to counter the medical board’s findings. The court noted that the back syndrome fibrosis was a recognized physiological response and upheld the District Commission’s dismissal of the complaint, stating there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence by the hospital or the neurosurgeon.

For further details, you can view the full order [here](https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-scdrc-no-deficiency-in-service-320544.pdf).

Related Articles

– Newborn death, hysterectomy after vacuum delivery: Gynaecologist, hospital get relief from medical negligence charges.