The patient had claimed that he was administered high-potency medicines daily at the hospital, leading to his deteriorating health. The State Commission noted that the complainant only made vague allegations, without detailing which medicines were administered and how the treatment provided to him constituted medical negligence.
The history of the case goes back to 2017, when the patient was suffering from pain in his right arm as well as the right side of his neck, and in an emergency, he visited Delhi-based Hospital and got admitted.
The complainant alleged that the medical superintendent of the hospital, along with his son, a doctor, gave him several high-potency medicines daily, and the complainant allegedly became 'unable to take even a loaf of bread in the name of eating and drinking'. Despite spending more than Rs 1,17,182 for the treatment, the complainant began suffering from deterioration of his health on account of several other defects of his organs.
Allegedly, when the hospital noticed that the complainant was about to die, the patient was discharged and referred to Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital, New Delhi. When the second hospital refused to provide treatment, he was taken to GTB Hospital on the same day, i.e., February 16, 2017, and remained admitted until February 22, 2017.
Also Read: No signed consent, records for surgery: Rs 22 lakh compensation slapped on Punjab doctor, hospital for medical negligence
Filing a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission, the complainant alleged that the treating hospital intentionally and deliberately kept on misusing the sanctity and pious medical profession to extort money.
On the other hand, the hospital submitted that at the time of admission, the complainant was diagnosed with PUO (Pyrexia of Unknown Origin). On account of fever for the last 20 days, the complainant was initially put on empirical antibiotic therapy. According to the hospital, only the tests, which were necessary to ascertain the cause of the fever and to assess the functioning of the vital organs, were conducted.
There was a problem in the liver of the Complainant, and his chest x-ray showed a chest infection. The CECT report dated 09.02.2017 suggested pulmonary TB. On 16.02.2017, the Complainant requested to be transferred, and on his request, he was referred to Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital on the same day.
The District Consumer Court dismissed the complaint, noting that the patient did not submit any evidence to show that the medical tests, which were not required, were also conducted by the hospital, and no evidence showed that the treatment given by the doctors was not proper. Then, the complainant challenged the DCDRC order before the Delhi State Consumer Court.
While considering the issue of whether the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint and whether the hospital was liable for medical negligence, the State Consumer Court observed that the complainant made vague allegations.
"A perusal of the aforesaid grounds of appeal makes it clear that the Appellant has merely made vague allegations which do not disclose any detail as regards to the grievance of the Appellant against the treatment provided. It is to be noted further that the Appellant has failed to carve out any grounds for alleging negligence on the part of the Respondents and has merely made bald averments that the treatment was prolonged and he was administered heavy dosage of medicines," noted the State Consumer Court.
Further observing that the complainant did not disclose which medicines were administered to him and what treatment carved out a ground for medical negligence, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The Commission noted in the order,
"A perusal of the contents of the appeal reflects that there is not even a slightest whisper as to administration of which medicines and what treatment carves out a ground for medical negligence. Furthermore, the Appellant has not placed on record any cogent material or expert evidence to show negligence on the part of the Respondents. Even otherwise, there is nothing in favour of the Appellant. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are constrained to dismiss the present Appeal, with no order as to costs."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-scdrc-no-med-negligence-296999.pdf
Also Read: Failure to Detect Foetal Anomalies: Consumer Court Exonerates Radiologist of Medical Negligence
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.