The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Haridwar has delivered a significant verdict, directing two doctors to jointly pay compensation of Rs 1.35 lakh to a woman who became pregnant despite undergoing a sterilisation procedure. The compensation includes Rs 1.2 lakh for the mental agony suffered and Rs 15,000 for litigation costs.
A Promise of Sterilisation Goes Wrong
Deepa Bhardwaj, a resident of Mohalla Datmandi in Jwalapur, Haridwar, underwent a tubectomy operation in November 2018. The procedure was performed by Dr. Sandhya Sharma at Prem Nursing Home in Jwalapur. Deepa had relied on the doctor's assurance that this surgery would prevent future pregnancies.
However, in a shocking turn of events, an ultrasound report in February 2018 confirmed that Deepa was three months pregnant. Following this discovery, the same doctor, Dr. Sandhya Sharma, advised her to undergo an abortion.
Complications Lead to Further Trauma
Seeking a second opinion, Deepa Bhardwaj consulted another hospital where Dr. Barkha Chandra prescribed medication to terminate the pregnancy. This medical intervention led to severe complications, including heavy bleeding that necessitated an urgent blood transfusion.
A critical error occurred during this emergency. The complainant alleged that Dr. Chandra requested A+ blood from the bank, while Deepa's actual blood group was O+. This mistake caused a dangerous delay in administering the correct blood type. As her condition rapidly deteriorated, she was shifted to a higher medical centre for advanced care.
The consequences were devastating. At the referral centre, doctors had to perform a hysterectomy, surgically removing Deepa's uterus to save her life.
The Legal Battle and Commission's Ruling
Deepa Bhardwaj filed a formal complaint with the consumer commission in November 2018. She named both doctors, the Chief Medical Officer of Haridwar, a national insurance company, and the other hospital as respondents in her suit seeking compensation.
After examining the evidence, the commission noted that it did not find conclusive proof of medical negligence in the performance of the original tubectomy surgery. However, the panel strongly held that the error concerning the patient's blood group during the subsequent crisis caused her significant mental distress and physical suffering.
Based on this finding, the commission ordered Dr. Sandhya Sharma and Dr. Barkha Chandra to jointly pay the compensation. The defence counsel for the doctors, Arun Bhadauria, argued that imposing a penalty without proof of medical negligence was incorrect. He stated that the order would be challenged in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
This case underscores the heavy responsibility borne by medical practitioners and the severe impact procedural errors can have on a patient's physical and mental well-being.
