The patient was diagnosed with a 9mm stone in upper ureter. The doctor performed lithotripsy to break and displace the stone. The operation was uneventful. Or so it seemed.

The patient consulted the doctor twice thereafter, but he was only prescribed medicines. Fed up of the pain and his condition, the patient consulted another doctor. A USG was performed; it reported a 7mm stone in the ureter!

Aghast at the findings of the stone which the patient believed was broken / destroyed, he sued the first doctor. It was alleged that doctor’s negligence and deficiency caused him unbearable pain for one year.

The doctor refused patient’s claims. He pointed out that the procedure was performed with the aid of modern machines and patient’s informed consent was also taken. The doctor also counter-claimed that patient never consulted him after the procedure.

Having perused medical records, medical texts and expert opinion, the Commission rejected doctor’s defence, while observing the following:

“The doctor performed lithotripsy in order to break and displace the stone. From three subsequent USG reports, it is found that stone remained, it was reported of 8.5mm in first USG report, 8mm in the second USG report and 7mm in the third one. Thus, it is clearly established that there was no progressive reduction of stone by the procedure adopted by the doctor”.

“A medical expert also opined that the main function of lithotripsy procedure is to break and displace the stone, and this procedure can be repeated till the object of removing stone is not obtained”.

“The doctor, despite performing lithotripsy advised the patient to continue medicines.  In his reply, he has stated that the patient did not consult him after the procedure, otherwise he could have performed lithotripsy. But when the patient approached him for consultation subsequent to the operation, what prevented him to do lithotripsy so that he could get relief?”

Apparently, the doctor had no answer to question raised by Commission. He was held negligent and ordered to pay compensation.

Source : Order pronounced by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 2nd January, 2024