Mock Drill For Child Abduction, Harassment To New Born's Family, Gurgaon Commission Orders Cloud Nine Hospital To Pay 2 Lakh Compensation

Brief Facts:

Vishal Yadav's (“Complainant”) wife, Dr Surbhi Ahuja was admitted to Cloud Nine Hospital (“Hospital”) for her delivery. After the baby was born, there was an announcement made that the newborn baby was missing from the room. It was a code-pink announcement which signifies infant abduction. The family members of the Complainant were left bewildered, as there was a lack of information and confusion in the hospital. The situation continued for 30 minutes, during which the family was not even informed about the gender of the newborn. Later, they were told that a baby girl had been born, and the earlier announcement was merely a mock drill. Additionally, the discharge summary provided to the Complainant at the time of his wife's discharge mentioned the newborn's blood group as B negative. However, when applying for the baby's Aadhar Card in August 2019, he discovered a discrepancy. Another report from the hospital indicated the blood group as O positive. Later, the Complainant filed a complaint for medical negligence to the Member Secretary, Medical Negligence Board, Gurugram. The board acknowledged the error in the identification of the blood group in the discharge summary but held that no harm had occurred to the baby due to the discrepancy.

Thereafter, aggrieved by the decision of the Board and the alleged conduct on part of the Hospital, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (“District Commission”) alleging severe deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices by the Hospital. He sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000 (Ten lakhs) for the mental agony and pain caused by these shortcomings.

In response, the Hospital and its Neonatology team submitted seven separate written statements. In these statements, they raised preliminary objections related to maintainability, limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction, and cause of action. They contested the material assertions made by the complainant and argued that no case of medical negligence had been established based on the pleadings.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the core defence presented by the Hospital and its Neonatology team was centred around the mock code pink drill being conducted as part of the protocol to ensure safety norms, denying any intention to harass. The Hospital contended that at the time of the drill, the Complainant's wife and baby were not present in the room, where she was admitted for delivery.

Acknowledging the absence of medical negligence causing harm, the District Commission rejected the Hospital's submission and held that the conduct of the mock drill itself was sufficient to cause extreme mental harassment and agony. The District Commission rejected the argument that the Complainant's presence in the Operation Theatre during the drill mitigated the impact, emphasizing that such announcements without informing the family were a severe deficiency in service and an extreme form of unfair trade practice. The District Commission observed a lack of evidence on the part of the Hospital to support its claim. Further, the District Commission noted that if a mock drill had to be done, the hospital staff could have easily informed the Complainant and his family. However, in this case, not only did the hospital fail to inform them, but also no one knew whether the newborn baby was a boy or a girl because the family hadn't seen the child.

Consequently, the District Commission held the Hospital guilty of severe deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice that caused extreme mental harassment to the Complainant and his family. Further, the District Commission directed the Hospital and its team to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, along with Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant. Other reliefs sought by the complainant were declined. The Hospital was instructed to make the payment within 45 days, failing which interest at 12% per annum would be applied.

Case Title: Vishal Yadav vs Cloud Nine Hospital

Case No.: CC/395/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: Naresh Gambhir

Advocate for the Respondent: Vinayak Gupta

Click Here To read/Download Order