No Cure Is Not A Negligence, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Hon'ble Dr. S.M. Kantikar C. as Presiding Member and Hon'ble Mr. Binoy Kumar as Member disposed of a consumer complaint filed by the parents of a patient(deceased) who was injured in a car accident stating that no cure for an ailment cannot be considered to be negligence. This was an original complaint filed before the NCDRC for a relief of rupees four crore (4,00,00,000/- INR) as compensation for an act of negligence by the opposite parties that resulted in the demise of the son of the complainants. The complainants had also made their complaint before the Medical Council of India(MCI) and Punjab Medical Council (PMC). The patient sustained a serious head injury - Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as the result of a car accident. He was rushed to PGI Chandigarh and all the preliminary check-ups and treatments were done there and after that, he was transferred to IVY hospital (opposite party 1) for further treatment. The patient passed away at the second hospital on 21/10/2008. According to the complainants, they were apparently allured by a certain person to transfer the deceased to the Ivy hospital (opposite party 1) under the care of a certain neurosurgeon (opposite party 2). The doctor had assured the complainants that the patient would be given personal treatment and care. The first allegation that was raised by the complainants was that the doctor had "electively ventilated" the patient for which no consent was sought from the parents. As per prescribed medical standards, the patient should not have been ventilated with regard to his Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) which was above 7 at the time. It was further alleged by the complainants that the ICU services were outsourced by the hospital to a third party. According to the parents of the deceased, the hospital was not at all equipped to deal with cases that required neurosurgery. There were also many other shortcomings in the treatment of the deceased that was pointed out by the complainants. The hospital denied all the above-mentioned allegations. They submitted that the patient was kept for more than 5 hours at PGI Chandigarh which led to the wastage of the "golden hour" and thus, led to the deterioration of the condition of the patient. The complainants did not pay heed to the advice given by the authorities at PGI Chandigarh and Left Against Medical Advice (LAMA) and shifted the patient from there and came to the hospital of the opposite parties out of their own will. The hospital stated that the Diffuse Brain Oedema and Acute Sub Dural Hematoma present in the patient at that point of time, necessitated putting him on the ventilator, though his GCS was 10. According to them, the ventilator support systems were removed right after its usage was not necessary anymore. They also submitted that the claim of the complainants of 4,00,00,000/- INR is highly exaggerated without any basis. The remaining respondents (opposite parties 2 to 5) also denied all contentions and averments in the complaint. The Medical Board that was constituted by PGI Chandigarh opined that there was no negligence in the treatment given by the opposite parties. They also adopted the contentions raised by opposite party 1. The NCDRC bench was of the opinion that since the patient was under observation in the ICU and on ventilator, the treating doctor would have made the most suitable decision according to the condition of the patient. The report made by the Medical Board was also referred to and with respect to that, the procedures done by the opposite parties like intubation, ventilation and sedation were consistent with the clinical picture and standard of care. It was further noted that the allegations raised by the complainants are in a vague and ambiguous manner with no logical and substantial backing. The complainants have also not filed any expert opinion to prove the negligence of the opposite parties and the bench further stated that the treatment given to the patient came within the bracket of the acceptable standards. The bench did not agree that the absence of sedation and struggle on the ventilator caused the rise in Intracranial Pressure (ICP) as Mannitol was administered in proper dosage to reduce the same. The NCDRC bench opined that due diligence and reasonable standard of care was followed by the doctors throughout the treatment of the patient and finally stated that "No Cure is Not a Negligence" and dismissed the complaint. Case Title: OM PARKASH SIKKA & ANR Vs IVY HOSPITAL & ORS Click Here To Read/Download Order

No Cure Is Not A Negligence, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Parvathy Roy

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

No Cure Is Not A Negligence, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Parvathy Roy

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers