Delay in Diagnosis Increases Severity of Condition: Kerala Hospital told to pay Compensation

The patient was suffering from several complications including Acute Meningo Encephalitis, severe Hyponatremia, Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) and Non-Insulin-Dependant Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM). However, due to the delay in diagnosis of the condition the complainant had to face several complications.

Thus, holding the treating hospital vicariously liable, the Consumer Court observed, "Hence opposite party 1 (hospital) is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as cost to the complainants."

Back in 2015, the patient had visited the treating hospital with complaints of fatigue. Thereafter she underwent few tests and was admitted to the hospital. However, as her condition deteriorated, she was discharged and was taken to another hospital for treatment. Following that, she was diagnosed with Acute Meningo Encephalitis, severe Hyponatremia, SIADH and NIDDM.

Also Read: Kidney Removed instead of Stone: Consumer Court holds hospital vicariously liable for medical negligence, directs Rs 11.23 lakh compensation

Lodging a complaint against the treating hospital, where the complainant was admitted at first, she claimed that the delay in the diagnosis of her condition led to severity of the her condition and as a result, she is still suffering from the adverse effects of the disease and requires the assistance of others to carry out day to day activities.

Thus, the complainant alleged deficiency in services against the treating doctors and the hospital and demanded a compensation of Rs 15 lakh along with Rs 25,000 as costs.

On the other hand, the treating doctors and the hospital were set exparte and they didn't file any version of their own.

After studying the materials placed on record, including the discharge summary from the second hospital, the Consumer Court noted, "History in Ext. A12 shows that the second complainant was "Evaluated outside and find to have UTI "(sic). Here the word "outside" refers to OP1 hospital. None of the other symptoms are recorded to have been found in the opposite party 1 hospital. Hence we take averment of non diagnosis of the actual indisposition of the second complainant to be a clear case of Res IpsaLocquiter."

Taking note of the fact that the treating doctors failed to recognize the symptoms of the diseases suffered by the complainant, the Commission further observed, "In the absence of any evidence forthcoming to show that the failure is not owing to any negligence, we have no option but to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 3."

However, opining that there is no evidence to conclude that who amongst the treating doctors were responsible in failing to detect the condition of the complainant, the Commission held the hospital vicariously liable to compensate the complainant.

At this outset, the Commission held that the claim raised by the complainants in the relief portion as exorbitant and noted,

"It is clear from the records that the complainant was already suffering from various diseases like Seizure, UTI, schizophrenia and Type 2 DM. Exhibit X1 is also not helpful to arrive at a clear picture as to the disability suffered by the 2 complainant and owing to the delay occurred in detecting Acute Meningo Encephalitis, severe Hyponatremia, Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH). In the absence of evidence to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, we are inclined to grant only a compensation for failure in detecting the maladies suffered by the complainant."

Thus, the consumer court directed the treating hospital to pay an amount of Rs 50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service along with Rs 25,000 as a cost within a period of 45 days.

"Hence opposite party 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as cost to the complainants," read the order.

To read the commission order, click on the link below.