PGI directed to pay Rs 17 lakh for delay in treatment leading to patient’s death

The NCDRC order quoted an inquiry conducted by the eminent doctors in this case, whose report said: “It would have been appropriate for the treating team to periodically reassess all the patients and reprioritize the OT schedule according to the seriousness of this case vis-à-vis the other cases.”

“The mechanism of injury of this patient should have raised a high index of suspicion that the patient had sustained crush injury of the thigh and was likely to develop serious complications. However, the team decided to stick to their previous waiting list and hence this patient could not be taken for surgery till 19.7.12,” the inquiry report said.

Upholding the order of the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — against which the PGI had filed an appeal before the NCDRC, the bench of Justice V B Gupta and Suresh Chandra ordered an increase in the total compensation from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh. Out of which, Rs 3 lakh was paid by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) to Anupama’s parents in acquiescence with the state commission’s order in 2013.

According to the court records, on July 17, 2012, as Anupama Sarkar, a resident of Mauli Jagran complex in Chandigarh and the only child of her parents, tried to board a CTU bus near the Government Model Senior Secondary School in Sector 18, where she studied, she fell down from the bus and her left leg was crushed under the rear tyre of the vehicle. She was rushed to the Advance Trauma Centre of the PGIMER where, following alleged delay in proper medical care, she developed gangrene and septicaemia which ultimately led to the amputation of her leg. It also resulted in the spread of infection into her entire body, which took her life on July 24.

Anupama’s parents then approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to fight for compensation. However, denying the charges, the PGIMER in its affidavit said, “Anupama was planned for surgery at the time of admission itself, but that the procedure was delayed due to a heavy rush of patients.”

On April 4, 2013, the state commission ordered the PGIMER to pay Rs 7 lakh and CTU to pay Rs 3 lakh to Anupama’s parents. However, this order was challenged by Anupama’s parents who sought higher compensation in the national commission. The PGIMER too filed an appeal before the national commission.

Rejecting the PGIMER’s appeal, the national commission, in consonance with the findings of the state commission, stated that “from the facts and circumstances of the case, as also from the enquiry reports, it is apparent that there was considerable delay in properly treating the patient” and that the “negligence on the part of the hospital has been clearly established.”