Patient's Death : NCDRC Holds Max Super Speciality Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable for deficiency in service due to negligently attributing to the death of a patient. It was further held that to prove legal liability, it must be demonstrated that the doctor failed to meet the standard of care reasonably expected of a competent medical professional in that field and that this failure directly caused harm or injury to the patient. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant's wife experienced knee pain for six months before visiting the Max Super Speciality Hospital/hospital. After being diagnosed with advanced osteoarthritis, surgery was recommended for bilateral total knee replacement. The procedure was conducted despite pre-operative tests indicating a 35% left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which posed risks for surgery. Consequently, the patient's condition deteriorated, leading to her admission to the ICU and subsequent transfer to another hospital, where she died. Alleging medical negligence, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of Punjab, which allowed the complaint. It directed the hospital and the doctors involved to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the hospital appealed to the National Commission. Contentions of the Hospital The hospital and doctors contested the complaint by stating that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint. They emphasized that Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali, provided state-of-the-art services transparently and compassionately. It was asserted that all pre-operative tests were conducted, and clearance for surgery was given after confirming the patient's fitness. They refuted the complainant's claim regarding the patient's LVEF, stating that the echocardiography showed an LVEF of over 60%, well within normal parameters. Additionally, they argued that the patient had no complaints of breathlessness or chest pain, denying any medical negligence and seeking dismissal of the complaint. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the hospital and doctors failed to produce credible evidence to support their claims regarding the dates of medical tests. They rejected the contention that the ECHO test report contained incorrect dates and emphasized that the evidence supported the complainant's assertion regarding the LVEF. Furthermore, the commission noted discrepancies in handling pre-operative evaluations and the patient's subsequent critical condition, concluding that the hospital and doctors did not meet the standard of care required, thus constituting medical negligence. Moreover, the commission's decision was in reference to the legal principles laid in the landmark case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. They reiterated the criteria for establishing medical negligence outlined in this case, emphasizing the duty owed to patients, the breach of that duty, and the resulting damage. Additionally, the court, in this case, clarified the distinction between civil and criminal negligence, highlighting the requirement to demonstrate a failure to provide the standard of care expected of a prudent doctor, leading to damage, to establish liability. By applying these legal principles to the facts of the case, the commission reached a thorough and well-founded conclusion regarding the presence of medical negligence on the part of the hospital and doctors. The Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the appeal. Case Title: Max Super Speciality Hospital Vs. Sham Singh Case Number: F.A. No. 1785/2019Click Here To Read/Download Order

Patient's Death : NCDRC Holds Max Super Speciality Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence

Ayushi Rani

Tags