Expert Evidence Vital In Medical Negligence Cases: Delhi State Commission Holds Fortis Hospital Liable For Deficiency In Service

The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki and Mr. J. P. Agrawal in an appeal against Fortis Hospital, held that expert evidence is fundamental in proving medical negligence. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant filed a case alleging medical negligence by Fortis Hospital/hospital (OP1) and the doctor (OP2) in treating his wife. He claimed that improper treatment led to her death and sought compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs for emotional distress, family suffering, and medical expenses. A complaint was filed before the District Commission, which dismissed the complaint. The complainant argued that the District Commission ignored an expert opinion from a medical board. He claimed the hospital's doctors gave conflicting statements about test results that confirmed adenocarcinoma and delayed the correct diagnosis. This delay, he stated, caused the patient's condition to worsen, ultimately leading to her death. He also alleged that the doctors recommended treatments unrelated to her actual condition, failing to provide proper care. Based on these points, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission of Delhi and requested that the earlier order be overturned. Contentions of the Hospital & the Doctor The hospital and the doctor argued that the complainant's case was based on a false impression that their diagnosis and treatment were wrong. They asserted that the complainant relied on the subsequent treatment by another hospital and did not provide evidence of negligence or medical errors. They stated that preliminary investigations had indicated a cancerous condition, and detailed pre-operative treatments and surgery were carried out with utmost caution, and nothing abnormal was found during the surgery. The doctor further stated that the appeal was filed on false grounds, and the appellant did not give any satisfactory grounds for setting aside the earlier judgment. The patient's test results were normal, and proper treatment protocols were followed. Thorough imaging and observations during surgery revealed no cancer, thus confirming that there was no delay or negligence. Both the hospital and doctor requested the dismissal of the appeal with costs. Observations by the State Commission The State Commission observed that the key issue was whether the district commission failed to assess the expert medical report in light of legal precedents and whether the hospital and doctor were negligent. Citing Chief Medical Officer Nehru Satabdi vs. Puja Sahu, the commission highlighted that expert evidence is vital in medical negligence cases, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kau & Anr. It noted that courts and consumer fora are not medical experts and should rely on specialists' opinions, as established in Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq. The expert report in this case revealed significant delays in diagnosing gallbladder cancer, which allowed the disease to progress. The hospital delayed initial diagnosis by two months and subsequent investigations by four months. The report noted that standard protocols, such as re-evaluating findings on suspicion of cancer, were not followed. It concluded that the unfavorable prognosis resulted from both the aggressive nature of the disease and delays caused by the hospital and doctor. The commission also referred to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, emphasizing that medical negligence involves a breach of duty of care, deviation from accepted standards, and harm caused directly by this breach. In this case, the negligence was evident in the hospital's failure to diagnose cancer promptly, re-evaluate earlier findings, or conduct timely investigations, resulting in the disease advancing to a lethal stage. The commission criticized the district commission for overlooking the expert opinion and held the hospital and doctor negligent. The appeal was allowed, and the earlier order was set aside.The State Commission directed the hospital and the doctor to jointly and severally pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation towards death, Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs. Case Title: Mr. Shiv Kumar Chandak Vs Fortis Hospital And Anr Case Number: F.A. No. 203/2016 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Expert Evidence Vital In Medical Negligence Cases: Delhi State Commission Holds Fortis Hospital Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Rani

Expert Evidence Vital In Medical Negligence Cases: Delhi State Commission Holds Fortis Hospital Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers