The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed vascular surgeon Dr. Anirban Chatterjee and Nightingale Diagnostic & Medicare Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, to jointly pay ₹75 lakh in compensation. The judgment comes after a 17-year-old girl, Srimoyee Basu, lost her right leg following a botched embolization procedure. The Commission found that the doctor and hospital failed to obtain proper informed consent and neglected to explore alternative treatment options.
Case Background
The complaint was filed by Jaita Mitra Basu and her daughter Srimoyee Basu under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants originally sought ₹20.41 crore in damages for medical negligence.
Srimoyee had been experiencing swelling in her right gluteal region since 2000. Initially diagnosed as neurofibroma, later tests in 2014 suggested it was an angiolipoma. In 2015, Dr. Anirban Chatterjee diagnosed her with Arteriovenous Malformation (AVM) and recommended vascular embolization, a procedure performed at Nightingale Hospital on September 16, 2015.
Read Also:- Raising Voice Alone Doesn’t Constitute an Offense Under Section 353 IPC: Karnataka High Court
During the procedure, a small amount of glue (N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate) accidentally entered the main artery of her right leg. Despite a corrective procedure the following day, by September 18, 2015, blood circulation stopped, leading to gangrene. She was then transferred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, where doctors had no choice but to amputate her right leg above the knee on September 22, 2015.
“Failure to fully inform a patient or their guardian about all possible risks and alternative treatments constitutes medical negligence.” - NCDRC Judgment
1. Did Dr. Chatterjee and Nightingale Hospital fail to exercise proper medical care during the embolization procedure?
2. Was the patient’s family adequately informed before consenting to the procedure?
3. Did the failure to consider alternative treatments amount to negligence?
4. Were the complainants entitled to compensation, and if so, how much?
The complainants, represented by Advocates Alok Saxena and Saksham T., argued that Dr. Chatterjee did not fully explain the risks associated with the procedure. A medical report from AIIMS, dated February 29, 2024, confirmed that while the glue ratio used was within the prescribed limit, its application varied based on clinical judgment.
The defense, represented by Advocate Vikas Nautiyal for Nightingale Hospital and Dr. Chatterjee himself, contended that AVM embolization is a high-risk procedure. They argued that the minor’s parents had signed a high-risk consent form acknowledging potential complications and that bypass surgery was not a viable alternative.
NCDRC’s Findings and Observations
Failure to Obtain Proper Informed Consent
The Commission ruled that while a High-Risk Consent Form was signed, it did not explicitly mention the possibility of glue leakage into unintended blood vessels.
“The patient’s parents were not sufficiently informed about the risks and potential complications. Obtaining consent without proper disclosure does not absolve the doctor or hospital from liability.” - NCDRC Judgment
Negligence in Treatment
The NCDRC referred to the AIIMS expert medical report, which confirmed that while glue embolization is a standard treatment, the risk of non-target embolization was known and should have been addressed with additional precautions.
“If such risks were well-documented, additional precautions should have been taken, and alternative methods should have been considered.” - NCDRC Judgment
The tribunal noted that Dr. Chatterjee did not explore bypass surgery as an alternative, which could have prevented the amputation.
Read Also:- CSR Funds Scam: National NGO's Confederation Founder Anand Kumar Seeks Bail from Kerala High Court
Complexity Does Not Excuse Negligence
The Commission cited the Bolam Test, which states that while doctors are not liable for errors in judgment, they are responsible if their decisions deviate from reasonable standards of care.
“The complexity of the procedure does not exempt a doctor from exercising due diligence. The failure to mitigate risks and explore alternatives amounts to actionable negligence.” - NCDRC Judgment
The NCDRC awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹75 lakh, payable jointly by Dr. Chatterjee and Nightingale Hospital, along with ₹50,000 in litigation costs. The compensation must be paid within one month, failing which a 12% simple interest per annum will be imposed until full payment is made.
“Failure to inform patients about risks constitutes a breach of duty, as emphasized in Supreme Court rulings such as Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005).” - NCDRC Judgment
