No Medical Negligence Proven: NCDRC Rejects Complaint Against Northern Railway and Batra Hospitals

Facts and Background of the Case

The complainant, Smt. Sarla Devi, filed the present consumer complaint alleging medical negligence by Northern Railway Central Hospital (OP-1 & OP-2), Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (OP-3), and the treating doctors, including Dr. Manish (OP-4) and Dr. Vijay Hangloo (OP-5), in connection with the treatment and subsequent death of her 22–23-year-old daughter, Ms. Monika Singh.

According to the complaint, the patient first experienced severe abdominal pain and vomiting on 21.07.2015, and was taken to Northern Railway Central Hospital at midnight. She was examined in the casualty, given injections, and advised tests with a tentative diagnosis of appendicitis. When the family brought her to the Surgical OPD the next morning, the doctors allegedly asked them to take her home, despite her continued discomfort. The complainant contended that the hospital failed to admit her or provide urgent treatment.

As her condition worsened, the family shifted her to Batra Hospital (OP-3) on 22.07.2015, where—according to the complainant—she remained mostly unattended for several hours before being admitted at 1:15 AM on 23.07.2015. She was later examined by OP-5, advised a CECT scan, and underwent surgery on 23.07.2015, during which parts of her intestine were removed. The complainant alleged delayed diagnosis, delayed surgery, tampering of medical records, and that the patient was kept in ICU without proper updates to the family.

Despite postoperative treatment, the patient's condition deteriorated, and she ultimately died on 26.07.2015, with the death summary noting causes including ileocecal thickening secondary to abdominal TB, perforation peritonitis, septicemia and multiorgan failure.

Claiming that timely diagnosis, proper tests, and appropriate treatment could have saved her daughter, the complainant sought ₹1,55,60,000/- compensation from all opposite parties for alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service.

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant alleged that both hospitals failed to admit, diagnose, and treat her daughter in time, and that delays in investigations, surgery, and ICU care led to her death. She claimed that timely medical intervention could have saved her daughter and sought compensation for deficiency in service.

Contentions of Opposite Parties

Northern Railway Central Hospital contended that Monika was examined promptly in the casualty ward and given appropriate injections and advice. They maintained that her condition was stable, and there was no surgical emergency at the time warranting admission. They denied refusing treatment and asserted that they gave the correct medical advice. They stated that the allegations of negligence were baseless and that they acted in accordance with medical protocol.

Batra Hospital denied delays and stated that the patient was properly evaluated, monitored, and treated, with all necessary tests and surgery conducted as per protocol.

Opposite Party No. 5, Dr. Vijay Hangloo, submitted that he advised proper tests, performed surgery based on necessity, and that the patient's death resulted from the severity of her abdominal tuberculosis and complications, not from negligence.

OP-4 (Dr. Manish) was proceeded ex parte, and OP-6 (the insurer) was later deleted from the array of parties by order of the Commission.

Observations and Decision of the Commission

The Commission observed that although the complainant levelled allegations of medical negligence against Northern Railway Central Hospital, Batra Hospital, and the treating doctors, the medical records, affidavits, and documentary evidence did not substantiate any lapse in diagnosis, treatment, or postoperative care. The evidence revealed that the patient was examined, stabilised, investigated, operated upon, and thereafter managed in the ICU with multidisciplinary support.

The Commission noted that the patient was suffering from abdominal tuberculosis with perforation peritonitis, a serious condition associated with high morbidity and mortality, particularly when longstanding or untreated. The CECT findings, surgical notes, postoperative records, and expert consultations indicated that the clinical picture was consistent with a complicated intestinal TB case, rather than any failure of medical care.

The allegation that the patient remained unattended for several hours or that there were unjustified delays in diagnosis or surgery was rejected. The Commission held that the complainant's claim that the patient reached Batra Hospital at 4 PM was contradicted by documentary evidence, which showed arrival at 11 PM. It also found no irregularity or foul play in the treatment notes or timings, holding that allegations of record tampering were unproved.

In reaching its conclusion, the Commission relied on well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010) 3 SCC 480, Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1149), and Chanda Rani Akhouri v. M.A. Methusethupati (2022 SCC OnLine SC 481), Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh (2021) 10 SCC 291, which emphasize that medical negligence must be proved through cogent evidence and that mere allegations or differences in medical opinion do not constitute negligence.

Applying these principles, the Commission held that no deficiency in service or medical negligence was established against any of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded.

Case Title: Smt. Sarla Devi vs. Northern Railway Central Hospital & Ors.

Case No. Consumer Complaint No. 2227 of 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order