Delhi State Consumer Commission Upholds ₹5 Lakh Compensation Against Max Balaji Hospital For Medical Negligence

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr. Anil Srivastava (Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Max Balaji Hospital and Dr. L. Tomar, thereby affirming the District Commission's finding of medical negligence and the award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the complainant, Smt. N.R. Mishra. Brief Facts of the Case: The complainant, Smt. N.R. Mishra, aged 56, suffered a fall on 02.06.2010, injuring her right ankle. She was admitted to Max Balaji Hospital on 03.06.2010 under Dr. L. Tomar's care. An X-ray at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital showed three fractures— fibula (below knee), posterior malleolus (ankle), and medial malleolus (below ankle). Surgery was performed on 04.06.2010, fixing only two fractures with screws, and she was discharged on 07.06.2010 after spending ₹76,167/-, with assurance of recovery in 4–6 weeks. After plaster removal on 18.07.2010, she continued to experience pain despite physiotherapy. Later consultations with orthopedic experts revealed that the medial malleolus fracture had not been fixed. Despite repeated approaches to the hospital for clarification and proper treatment, no satisfactory response was given. She also consulted two orthopedic surgeons — Dr. Shankar Acharya of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Prof. U.N. Misra — both of whom confirmed that one of the fractures (medial malleolus) remained untreated. The complainant alleged that this caused persistent pain and difficulty in walking, forcing her to depend on an attendant for daily activities. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi, alleging medical negligence and sought ₹7,25,000/- as compensation. The District Commission found that the handwritten discharge summary mentioned three fractures, while the typed version omitted the third, indicating an attempt at concealment. It also noted that the expert opinion from GTB Hospital, which exonerated the doctors, could not be relied upon as the complainant was not examined and relevant expert opinions were ignored. Finding deficiency in service, the Commission awarded ₹5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Commission, the hospital and Dr. L. Tomar filed an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the findings of medical negligence and the compensation awarded to the complainant. Contentions of the Parties: The complainant, Smt. N.R. Mishra, contended that though three fractures were visible in the X-ray, only two were treated, leaving the medial malleolus fracture unattended. Despite assurance of full recovery, she suffered ongoing pain, showing improper surgery. She further alleged that the hospital tried to hide its mistake by omitting the third fracture from the typed discharge summary. The opposite parties, Max Balaji Hospital and Dr. L. Tomar, denied all allegations of negligence, asserting that the treatment provided was proper and in accordance with accepted medical standards. They contended that post-operative X-rays showed good alignment and adequate fixation, and that the medial malleolus fracture was not evident during surgery. The hospital argued that any discrepancy between the handwritten and typed discharge summaries was clerical in nature, as the handwritten version had been prepared by an intern. They also relied on the expert opinion from GTB Hospital, which found no deficiency in service, and maintained that the District Commission had erred in rejecting this expert finding and misappreciated the evidence on record. Observation of the Commission: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the omission of the third fracture (medial malleolus) from the typed discharge summary was not a clerical or typographical error but a clear indication of negligence. It rejected the hospital's argument that the handwritten discharge summary was prepared by an intern, holding that the hospital could not evade responsibility for an official medical document. The Commission also noted that the medical literature placed on record itself prescribed surgical treatment for displaced medial malleolus fractures, yet the complainant was only given a below-knee plaster cast, showing deviation from standard medical protocol. It further held that the expert report from GTB Hospital could not be relied upon since the panel failed to examine the complainant and ignored the expert opinions of Dr. Shankar Acharya and Prof. U.N. Misra, both of whom had identified an ununited fracture. Holding that the doctor failed to exercise reasonable care and skill, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission's order, confirming ₹5,00,000/- compensation to the complainant. CASE TITLE: MAX BALAJI HOSPITAL & ANR. VS SMT. N.R. MISHRA ...

Delhi State Consumer Commission Upholds ₹5 Lakh Compensation Against Max Balaji Hospital For Medical Negligence

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi State Consumer Commission Upholds ₹5 Lakh Compensation Against Max Balaji Hospital For Medical Negligence

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers