NCDRC: Medical Negligence Is Not Automatically Presumed Against The Medical Professional If The Treatment Fails

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar allowed an appeal on account of lack of any scientific analysis and medical evidence against the appellant hospital. Two contentions were reiterated by Dr. Kantikar, firstly, if patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, the blame can’t be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had provided all possible treatment. Secondly, where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. Brief Facts: The Complainant’s husband, Jai Singh (“deceased patient”), was hospitalized in the Pink City Heart and General Hospital on account of severe chest pain and excessive perspiration. Dr. B.B. Lath started the treatment and under the presumption of lung infection, the patient was administered antibiotics and anti-allergic medicines for 2 days. Post that, the deceased patient was sent to another Heart and General Hospital for ‘Doppler Echo Study’ as it was not available with the initial hospital. The Heart and General Hospital delayed the report which deteriorated the patient’s condition. After one day, the Pink City Heart and General Hospital performed a test which revealed Heart attack and in haste, the deceased patient was shifted to Dana Shivam Heart and Super Specialty Hospital without ambulance. Angioplasty was performed and it was discovered that the infection has spread to the legs. Thus, the deceased patient was again shifted to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital (“SDMH”) in a critical condition and admitted in the ICU but he expired within 2 weeks. Being aggrieved by the death of the deceased patient, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission placed medical negligence and carelessness on part of Pink City Heart & General Hospital and Dana Shivam Heart & Specialty Hospital. The Pink City Heart and General Hospital contended that Dr. B.B. Lath examined the patient and immediately started the treatment. The relevant investigations were performed and proper medicines were administered. Further, the patient died in SDMH, which was 28 days after the discharge from the Pink City Heart and General Hospital. Thus, the complaint is baseless. Observations of the Commission: The NCDRC perused the medical record and observed that when the patient was lastly admitted at SDMH, he already complained of shortness of breath, altered sensorium and generalized weakness. The patient also had a kidney injury and was diagnosed of bradycardia and hypotension. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s case of Bombay Hospital and Research Medical Centre vs Asha Jaiswal and others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1149, wherein it was held that if the patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, the blame can’t be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had provided all possible treatment within their means and capacity to diagnose the patient of this illness. Further reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the ‘test’ for establishing medical negligence was laid down by the Supreme Court. It was opined that where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. Thus, it was held that even the Pink City Heart and General Hospital and Dana Shivam Heart and Super Specialty Hospital cannot be held guilty of medical negligence as the Complainant failed to bring on record the appropriate medical evidence to prove medical negligence. The State Commission’s reasoning was merely assumptive without the scientific analysis and lack of supportive medical evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the State Commission was set aside. Case:Pink City Heart and General Hospital vs Banarsi Devi and ors. Case No.:First Appeal No. 1018 of 2019 Counsel for the Appellant:Mr. Ajatshtru Mina, Ms. Apeksha Tiwari, Ms. Aishwarya and Mr Kartikay Sahai Counsel for the Respondents:Mr. Avnish Dave and Mr. Pramod Kumar Vishnoi Click Here To Read/Download Order

NCDRC: Medical Negligence Is Not Automatically Presumed Against The Medical Professional If The Treatment Fails

Smita Singh

Tags