Medical Negligence Case: Supreme Court Awards Compensation for Laparoscopic Surgery Error

The case of Harnek Singh & Others vs. Gurmit Singh & Others was a medical negligence dispute brought before the Supreme Court. The petitioners, representing the deceased Mrs. Manjit Kaur, claimed that she had died due to surgical errors and medical negligence during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed at Preet Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital. The Supreme Court found that medical negligence was proven and directed compensation to be paid to the complainants.

Background of the Case

Mrs. Manjit Kaur, a government teacher, developed gall bladder stones and sought treatment at Preet Surgical Centre. The surgeon, Dr. Gurmit Singh, after conducting medical tests, recommended laparoscopic surgery. The patient was declared fit for surgery after clearance from a cardiologist and underwent the procedure on July 28, 2004. Following the surgery, she developed severe abdominal pain and complications.

Despite assurances from the surgeon that her condition was normal, her health deteriorated rapidly. The complainants repeatedly requested that she be shifted to another hospital, but their requests were ignored. Eventually, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital (DMCH), Ludhiana, where it was discovered that she had suffered intestinal perforation and bile duct injury. Emergency surgery was performed, but she succumbed to multiple organ failure on August 11, 2004.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments (Family of Mrs. Manjit Kaur)

The surgeon, Dr. Gurmit Singh, negligently caused injuries to the bile duct and colon during the laparoscopic surgery.
The doctor failed to diagnose the complication in time, which led to the patient’s condition worsening.
Despite clear signs of distress, the hospital refused to shift the patient to a better-equipped medical facility in a timely manner.
There was a delay in conducting a follow-up surgery at DMCH, leading to further deterioration of the patient’s health.
Medical negligence was confirmed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and two expert reports from AIIMS and KGMC.
The family sought compensation of Rs. 62.85 lakh for medical expenses, loss of income, and emotional trauma.

Respondents’ Arguments (Doctors and Hospitals)

The surgery was conducted with due care, and the complications that followed were rare but known risks of the procedure.
There was no evidence of negligence, as the patient’s condition initially improved post-surgery.
The decision to delay the second surgery was taken in the best medical interest of the patient.
The initial surgeon did not believe that the symptoms indicated an injury and treated the patient accordingly.
Expert medical testimony supported the claim that injuries to the bile duct and intestine might not be immediately apparent.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed medical records, expert opinions, and previous rulings by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The key observations were:

Negligence was established: The Court found that there was an avoidable delay in diagnosing and treating the intestinal perforation.
MCI report confirmed negligence: The Ethics Committee of the MCI found that Dr. Gurmit Singh failed to exercise adequate medical competence.
Expert reports highlighted errors: AIIMS and KGMC experts stated that earlier detection and treatment could have prevented the fatal outcome.
Deficiency in service: The surgeon failed to respond appropriately to clear warning signs of bile duct injury and peritonitis.
Failure to seek specialist opinion: The Court noted that the treating surgeon did not consult a gastroenterologist despite the patient’s worsening condition.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court remarked:

“The findings at laparotomy confirmed it to be a case of large bowel perforation, which could be iatrogenic, related to the laparoscopic procedure. Appropriate surgical intervention was done on a by now very sick patient.”

The Court further stated:

“There was a significant delay in the diagnosis and operative intervention, first at the local hospital and subsequently at DMCH, Ludhiana, which led to an unfavorable outcome.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the NCDRC, reinstating the compensation awarded by the SCDRC. The key conclusions were:

The complainants were entitled to Rs. 25 lakh as compensation for medical negligence.
Interest at 6% per annum was awarded from the date of the SCDRC order.
The amount must be deposited within six months, failing which an interest of 9% per annum would apply.
Only the primary surgeon and Preet Surgical Centre were held liable, while DMCH and its doctors were exonerated.

Outcome: The ruling reinforces accountability in medical negligence cases and upholds patient rights in healthcare settings.

Petitioner Name: Harnek Singh & Others.
Respondent Name: Gurmit Singh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Place Of Incident: Punjab, India.
Judgment Date: 18-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: harnek-singh-&-other-vs-gurmit-singh-&-other-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Medical Malpractice
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category