A Delhi consumer commission has held a doctor liable for medical negligence after a woman’s fractured leg was treated with a plaster instead of the surgical procedure later found necessary.
The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed the doctor to pay Rs 35 lakh to the woman, including Rs 30 lakh as compensation and Rs 5 lakh towards litigation costs accumulated over more than 10 years.
Woman was treated with plaster after fracture
The woman fractured her leg after falling at home on February 2, 2014. She was taken to a nursing home, where the doctor advised an X-ray and temporarily plastered the injured portion.
After another X-ray the following day, the doctor ruled out surgery and advised follow-up treatment. The woman was reportedly told that the fracture would heal on its own within eight to 10 months.
A permanent plaster was applied on February 14. However, the woman continued to experience pain and relied on painkillers and calcium supplements.
Later examination found serious damage
In April 2015, the doctor advised the woman to seek an opinion from a government hospital.
She and her husband subsequently visited Lok Nayak Hospital, where doctors reportedly found that the bones at the fracture site had been extensively damaged.
The woman then approached the consumer commission, alleging that the delay in receiving appropriate treatment had caused permanent damage.
Medical board said surgery was required
The commission sought an expert opinion from Safdarjung Hospital. A medical board concluded that the standard protocol for the injury required definitive operative fixation, or surgery, and that timely intervention was important to prevent permanent damage.
The commission also noted that the doctor had not produced prescriptions or tests showing that the fracture had been appropriately re-evaluated during treatment.
Commission finds treatment below accepted standard
The commission held that the doctor had failed to follow the reasonable standard of care expected from a medical practitioner.
It rejected the argument that fractures can sometimes be managed through non-surgical treatment, noting the specific medical evidence presented in this case.
The ruling emphasised that patients are entitled to appropriate treatment based on accepted medical protocols and that prolonged delays can have serious consequences.