Medical Negligence: Kakinada Consumer Commission Directs Medicover Hospital, Cardiologist To Pay ₹99 Lakh Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kakinada, comprising President Sri Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar and Members Smt. Chakka Susi and Sri Chaganti Nageswara Rao, has held Medicover Hospitals, Nellore, and its cardiologist Dr. Paluru Manohar Reddy liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service after finding that the hospital failed to justify the administration of dialysis to a patient suffering from a serious cardiac condition and failed to produce the complete medical case sheet and other contemporaneous treatment records. Facts The complaint was filed by Smt. Pothula Marian Marcelina and her minor daughter alleging medical negligence in the treatment of Late Vijay Kumar. According to the complainants, Vijay Kumar was admitted to Medicover Hospitals, Nellore, on February 28, 2025. They alleged that the hospital failed to properly diagnose and treat his condition and negligently administered dialysis despite his severe cardiac complications. It was contended that the improper treatment aggravated his condition, resulting in his death on March 2, 2025. They further alleged that the hospital issued false and manipulated medical reports, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the patient's deteriorating condition, gave evasive replies when questioned about the treatment, collected substantial amounts towards medical expenses, and refused to hand over the deceased's body until the dues were cleared. Contending that the deceased, aged 42 years, was employed in the private sector and earning ₹90,000 per month, the complainants sought ₹99 lakh as compensation, refund of ₹3 lakh spent towards medical expenses, and litigation costs. Contentions of the Parties The hospital and the treating cardiologist denied the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service, contending that the patient was admitted in a critical condition with multiple co-morbidities, including uncontrolled diabetes, renal complications and cardiac ailments. They submitted that dialysis was medically indicated and administered in accordance with accepted medical practice, and that the patient's condition deteriorated due to the natural progression of his illness. The opposite parties also argued that the complainants had failed to produce any expert medical evidence to establish negligence and relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, to contend that an unsuccessful treatment outcome or the death of a patient does not by itself establish medical negligence. Observations & Decision The Commission noted that the hospital's own records diagnosed the patient with "Acute AWMI with Severe LVD," indicating a serious cardiac condition. However, it failed to produce any contemporaneous nephrology advice or medical records justifying the administration of dialysis and instead relied on a pre-admission ECG rather than a contemporaneous cardiac evaluation. The Commission also found that the hospital examined a Company Secretary instead of the treating doctors. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that, according to ICMR norms, dialysis ought not to be administered to a patient suffering a heart stroke, yet acknowledged that the deceased had undergone dialysis twice. The Commission further observed that the hospital failed to produce the complete case sheet or examine the treating specialists. Drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it held that once the complainants established a prima facie case, the evidentiary burden shifted to the hospital to justify the treatment, which it failed to discharge. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the complainants had proved medical negligence and deficiency in service. While determining compensation, the Commission applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, and Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha. The Commission quantified the compensation at ₹1.40 crore, considering the deceased's age, income, future prospects, loss of dependency, consortium, medical expenses and mental agony.However, since the complainants had restricted their claim to ₹99 lakh, the Commission restricted the award to ₹99 lakh. The Commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay ₹99 lakh, out of which ₹50 lakh shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the minor daughter until she attains majority. The widow was permitted to withdraw the accrued interest periodically for the child's education, welfare and maintenance. The Commission also awarded ₹10,000 towards litigation costs and directed compliance within 45 days, failing which the compensation would carry interest...

Medical Negligence: Kakinada Consumer Commission Directs Medicover Hospital, Cardiologist To Pay ₹99 Lakh Compensation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Medical Negligence: Kakinada Consumer Commission Directs Medicover Hospital, Cardiologist To Pay ₹99 Lakh Compensation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers