In the case of Shabir Hussain v. Centre For Sight According to a complaint made under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the complainant’s son died as a result of suspected medical malpractice. The complainant’s son was involved in a car accident and sustained several head, facial, and eye injuries. He initially received care at the Jabalpur Hospital, where he underwent a number of operations. The plaintiff and his wife sought treatment at Hyderabad’s Centre for Sight for their son’s minor lower right eyelid deformity. Following a patient evaluation, the doctors recommended a lateral tarsorrhaphy treatment plan. Under general anaesthesia (GA), the patient had oculoplasty surgery. However, the patient tragically lost away following the procedure.
Contention from Parties
According to the complainant, the opposing parties acted carelessly. It was claimed that neither a pre-anaesthetic checkup nor a medical examination was performed by the opposing parties. There were claims that there were no basic life-saving facilities, an ICU with adequate equipment, or a cardiologist present and that the opposing parties were more concerned with making money than caring for the patients. Additionally, the complainant said that because a local anaesthetic is used for the majority of eye procedures, choosing general anaesthesia was hasty and careless. Additionally, the opposing parties withheld the cause of death but did cite cardiac arrest while issuing the Death Certificate after nine months.
The opposing parties refuted the claims of medical negligence by asserting that they are competent professionals and treated the patient in accordance with all necessary standards and laws. It was further noted that the complainant and his son both signed informed permission forms for the surgical procedure and general anaesthesia because the specifics of the therapy were discussed with the patient and the complainant.
Conclusion of NCDRC
According to the NCDRC bench headed by Dr S.M. Kantikar, no sane medical professional would willfully do something that would harm or injure a patient since it would jeopardise their image as a doctor. Apollo Hospital was chosen as the patient’s tertiary care facility, but the complainant assumes that this was done to avoid liability. The Commission, meanwhile, rejected the argument since sending the patient to a tertiary care institution is not negligence.
The Commission held that the complaint had not met his burden of proof and that medical malpractice was not to blame for his son’s tragic death. The complaint was dismissed, and neither of the other parties was held accountable.