- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
Bile duct cut during gallbladder removal surgery: Doctor slapped Rs 10 lakh compensation

Medical Negligence
Chennai: Holding a private doctor liable for medical negligence for partly cutting the bile duct while performing the gallbladder removal surgery, the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently directed him to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to the patient.
The State Consumer Commission bench, comprising Justice R Subbiah, passed this order while partly allowing the plea filed by the patient from Chennai.
The consumer court concluded that the complainant/patient had suffered from numerous unnecessary complications due to the doctor's negligence. Apart from ordering Rs 10 lakh compensation, the State Commission also directed the doctor to pay Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses within eight weeks, adding that failure to do so shall carry an interest of nine per cent from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realisation.
The history of the case goes back to 2004, when the patient, suffering from severe abdominal pain, was taken to the doctor for treatment and was diagnosed with Cholecystitis with Cholelithiasis. Based on the doctor's advice, the patient was admitted to the CM Hospital in Nanganallur on April 24, 2004, where a three-hour surgery was performed to remove the gallbladder.
Also Read: NHRC issues notice after woman dies post C-section at Jaipur hospital
A few days later, the complainant found her nails and eyes becoming yellowish, and therefore she approached the treating doctor. It was submitted that the doctor subjected the complainant to draining out fluids collected in the sub-hepatic space. However, even after that, the patient developed complications that led to jaundice. Consequently, the patient was advised to be admitted to another hospital on May 12, 2004.
As per the latest media report by The New Indian Express, the tests revealed that the treating doctor had partly removed the bile duct itself, and in order to cover up the mistake, the doctor allegedly attached a long cylindrical tube with a urinal bag below the liver region outside the body, inflicting a great level of pain to the patient, before suggering ignominy. Later, the patient was taken to the CMC Hospital, Vellore, where she had to undergo a risky surgery on October 13, 2004.
Following this, the patient filed a complaint before the State Consumer Court against the treating doctor and the CM Hospital seeking Rs 15.51 lakh in damages and Rs 5 lakh towards deficiency in service and mental agony.
While considering the matter, the Commission held the treating doctor liable for medical negligence. It ordered,
"It is only due to the conscious negligence and failure on the part of the first opposite party (doctor) to act diligently on the histopathology report, the complainant suffered very many complications unnecessarily and whatever diligence shown by him at the later stage would not efface the effects of negligence that had already caused great level of damage to the complainant physically, mentally and financially."
Further, the Commission stated, "as such, he shall be held liable proportionately and, in our considered opinion, directing him to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh would meet the ends of justice."
However, the commission rejected the allegations against the hospital for the absence of substantial materials.