Delhi-based Private hospital, doctors directed to pay compensation for failing to provide appendix treatment to minor patient despite diagnosis

The case concerned a minor who visited the hospital with her father Singh in 2018. On May 6, 2018, The father had the patient admitted to the hospital 8, after she complained of severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and fever. The hospital conducted various tests, including a CT scan, which indicated an issue with the appendix. Despite the diagnosis, the hospital allegedly did not provide appropriate treatment. Later, the patient was discharged from the hospital and a bill of Rs 58,381/- was recovered from the complainant.

However, the patient's condition worsened, and she was rushed back to the hospital. Subsequent examinations revealed appendix perforation, infection and leakage in the internal area of abdomen. Further, various other tests were done upon the suggestion of treating doctors but allegedly they themselves failed to interpret the findings of the report and the patient was again discharged from the hospital without any proper treatment for the appendix.

After few hours of the discharge, the condition of the patient deteriorated with severe pain in the lower abdomen and vomiting. The patient was then transferred to another hospital, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, where she underwent laparoscopy surgery for drainage of pelvic abscess and subsequent appendix removal.

Aggrieved, the patient's father alleged negligence on the part of the hospital and the treating doctors, stating that the hospital's failure to provide adequate and timely treatment exacerbated the patient's condition and prolonged her suffering in order to make some monetary gain. He moved the consumer court and sought compensation for medical expenses and the mental and physical anguish endured.

The averments made by the Complainant in the present complaint remained unrebutted since the hospital and its doctors were adjudged ex-parte. The Complainant was directed to file ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit which was filed by the complainant in order to prove his averments on record.

After perusing the material available on record, the Commission deliberated the only question was whether the hospital and the doctors were liable for the negligence and deficiency in providing the treatment to the patient.

To deal with this issue, the Commission primarily deem it appropriate to refer to the law on the cause. It referred to the scope and extent of Negligence with respect to Medical Professionals in CC324/2013, as discussed in detail in the judgement titled Seema Garg & Anr. vs. Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Anr. decided on 31.01.2022.

It observed that in the present case also, it will be have to be ascertained whether there was any lack of skill and competence on the part of the treating doctor and/or any omission to do what was actually required in the present facts and circumstances. It further clarified that the complainant did not challenged the competency of treating doctor, hence, there was no lack of competence on the part of the medical practitioners.

However, as far as the question of omission to do any act which was actually required was concerned, the Commission observed that;

"The Complainant has contended that the Opposite Party No. 4, 5 and 6 (the treating doctors) were aware of the condition of the patient and after examination, the treating doctors i.e. Opposite Party no. 4, 5 and 6 suggested for the CT scan and ultrasound of the entire abdominal area on 06.05.2018, however, even after the examination of the said reports, the Opposite Parties failed to provide the treatment in accordance with the reports. This act, as per the Complainant constitutes Negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties."

On perusal of record, the Commission found that;

"The final report of the CT scan clearly indicated that the appendix of the patient was dilated and inflamed. Further, fluid like substance (Ascites) was also find in the abdominal area of the patient. However, the patient was not treated by the Opposite Parties as per such examination report. On the other hand, when the patient was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, she had undergone through proper examination where essentially, the fluid in the abdomen was extracted and sent for the examination to rule out tuberculosis, which was found negative as per the report. Further, after the extraction of the fluid like substance from the abdomen area, the patient had undergone through laparoscopic surgery at the scheduled date for the removal of the perforated Appendix."

Subsequently, the Commission held that the hospital had indeed been negligent in providing appropriate medical care to the patient. It ordered the hospital to compensate the complainant with Rs 2,50,000 along with 6% interest from the date of admission, amounting to Rs 6,41,000, which the hospital was directed to refund. Additionally, the hospital was given two months to fulfill this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the aforementioned amounts with a 9% annual interest rate.

It noted;

"Keeping in view of the above situation, we find sheer negligence on part of the Opposite Parties as the patient (daughter of the Complainant) was not treated with due care and caution by the Opposite Parties and the treatment was not done in accordance with the medical practice followed by the doctors while treating the patient of similar condition."

"Therefore, from the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Parties are negligent in providing its services to the patient (daughter) of the Complainant and keeping in view the principles detailed above and the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the patient, and other necessary and essential factors, we are of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 06.05.2018 (date on which the patient was admitted to the Hospital of the Opposite Parties) till the realization of the amount, to the Complainant for the suffering, mental pain and agony caused."

"Further, as per the facts of the complaint, the Complainant was charged with an amount of Rs. 6,41,000/- (Rs. 2,91,000/- + Rs. 3,50,000/-) by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for the treatment of the patient (daughter of the Complainant). Therefore, we also direct the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount of Rs. 6,41,000/- to the Complainant."

To view the original order, click on the link below: 

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-state-commission-refund-compensation-221930.pdf

Corrigendum: Medical Dialogues earlier misidentified the hospital in this report. The hospital in this case is a Delhi based private hospital, not Sir Ganga Ram hospital. Medical Dialogues team apologizes for the mistake.