8 hrs ago
Himachal Commission Orders Compensation Over Sponge Left After Surgery
A man had gallbladder surgery in 2019.
A small surgical sponge was accidentally left inside his abdomen.
About one year later, he developed serious stomach pain.
Doctors found the sponge and removed it in another operation.
He then complained that the hospital and doctors had been careless.
A consumer commission agreed that leaving a sponge inside someone is clear negligence.
It ordered payment of Rs 5.12 lakh plus interest.
The commission also awarded Rs 15,000 for legal costs, but rejected the man’s claim that he had lost salary because it was not supported by documents.
A surgical sponge was found in a man’s abdomen about a year after gallbladder surgery in Himachal Pradesh.
The man underwent corrective surgery on October 1, 2020, to remove the retained sponge.
The District Consumer Commission treated the retained foreign material as gross negligence under res ipsa loquitur.
The commission ordered compensation of Rs 5.12 lakh with 9% annual interest and Rs 15,000 in litigation costs.
Insurers argued that the claim fell outside their policy periods and reporting requirements.
- Who
- A man who underwent gallbladder surgery, the hospital and two doctors, and the insurers involved in the hospital’s policies.
- What
- The Himachal Pradesh District Consumer Commission ordered compensation after a surgical sponge was left inside the man’s abdomen and later removed.
- Where
- At a hospital in Himachal Pradesh and before the Himachal Pradesh District Consumer Commission.
- When
- The initial surgery took place from July 29 to August 3, 2019; the sponge was detected in September 2020 and removed on October 1, 2020; the commission’s order was dated September 24.
- Why
- The commission found that retaining a surgical sponge constituted gross negligence, while rejecting the claimed salary loss as unsupported by documents.
Complainant and Commission
Doctors and Insurers
Whether leaving the sponge proved negligence
Complainant and Commission
The complainant alleged gross medical negligence, and the commission held that leaving a foreign object inside the body falls below the standard of a reasonably competent medical practitioner.
Doctors and Insurers
The doctors did not file their reply within the prescribed 45-day period, although they were allowed to cross-examine the doctor who performed the corrective surgery.
Claimed financial losses
Complainant and Commission
The man claimed Rs 6.5 lakh in financial losses, along with compensation for mental agony and physical suffering.
Doctors and Insurers
The commission found his claim for lost salary exaggerated and unsupported, noting the partial COVID-19 lockdown and lack of documentary proof.
Insurance coverage
Complainant and Commission
The complainant sought relief after the hospital’s alleged negligence and the later corrective surgery created medical and financial burdens.
Doctors and Insurers
Oriental Insurance argued that its policy had expired and the claim was reported too late, while National Insurance said its claims-made policies began after the relevant events and had a later retroactive date.
Key facts
- Compensation
- Rs 5.12 lakh
- Litigation costs
- Rs 15,000
- Interest
- 9% per annum from the date of the complaint until realization
- Initial surgery
- Gallbladder surgery followed hospitalization from July 29 to August 3, 2019
- Foreign body size
- An 8×8 cm collection or foreign body was detected in September 2020
- Corrective surgery
- The retained Gossypiboma was removed on October 1, 2020
- Legal principle
- The commission applied res ipsa loquitur, meaning the retained surgical sponge itself indicated negligence
Quotes
Himachal Pradesh District Consumer Commission
The consumer commission that issued the compensation order.
“Under the well-established doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), the presence of a retained surgical sponge (Gossypiboma) per se constitutes gross negligence, as no complex expert testimony is required to prove that leaving foreign material inside a patient’s body falls far below the standard of a reasonably competent medical practitioner”
indianexpress.com
“the loss on account of the absence of the complainant from duty as he remained without pay/salary has been exaggerated one. During the COVID-19 pandemic when there was a partial lockdown throughout India, the assertion of the complainant that he remained without salary is not supported by any document.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
NCDRC Raises Compensation After Fatal Ovarian Surgery Negligence Case
Delhi Commission Orders Doctor to Pay Rs 35 Lakh
State commission raises compensation for advocate’s surgical nerve damage
Mohali Hospital Ordered to Pay ₹20,000 Over Changing Bills
Kerala Hospital Ordered to Pay Patient Rs 1.14 Lakh
Calcutta High Court Awards Rs 5 Lakh for Surgical Blindness
Shivraj urges Centre, states to put farmers above politics
Uttar Pradesh Connects All 251 Mandis to National Agmarknet Network
Australian Hitchhiker Urges Tourists To Explore India's Diverse Landscapes
Centre Sanctions Rs 1,200 Crore to Ten States Under PM-RKVY
