Referring accident victim without initial treatment: Hospital told to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation

New Delhi: Noting that a doctor and hospital had shown a deficiency in service by referring an accident victim without providing him with initial treatment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed a hospital and its doctor owner to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation.

The incident goes back to 2005 when two persons going on a bike met with a serious accident. Both the injured were brought to the Badyal Hospital. It was alleged that the families of both the patients were asked to deposit mandatory advance, and while the family of one patient managed to deposit, the other- complainant, in this case, couldn't and hence their son was forcibly shifted to another hospital. Unfortunately, the patient died mid-way.

The complainants filed a complaint with the district commission against the hospital and its owner- Dr Badyal but the district forum dismissed the complaint.

An appeal was then filed with the state commission, and the state commission awarded compensation of Rs 15 lakh. Noting that the doctor and hospital were insured by National Insurance Co Ltd for upto Rs 10 lakh, the forum directed the insurance company to pay Rs 10 lakh and directed the doctor-hospital to pay remaining Rs 5 lakh.

The decision was then challenged by the doctor, hospital as well as the insurance company before the national forum.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the hospital and the doctor stated that the patient Sandeep was seriously injured in the accident and proper facilities of treatment were not available in the hospital and therefore, he was not admitted in the hospital and was referred to a higher hospital where all facilities were available. It is wrong to say that doctor accepted Rs.20,000/- from the other patient Rajwinder who was treated in the hospital. As the case of Rajwinder was manageable with the facilities available at the hospital, he was admitted and given treatment and then shifted to higher hospital.

The counsel also challenged that since no money was either paid by the complainants to the doctor/hospital nor promised to pay any amount to them, and in the light of the fact that no service was provided to the son of the complainants or to the complainants by the doctor hospital, the complainants cannot be considered as consumer. There was also no proof that doctor/hospital demanded Rs.20,000/- as advance from the complainants for treating Sandeep.

The counsel further added that the finding has been given by the State Commission confirming the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.2 without any evidence. The order of the State Commission is based only on assumptions and presumptions, hence the same cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside.

Similar arguments were put forward by the counsel for the insurance company.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainants maintained that hospital refused to give any treatment (within the first Aid) to Sandeep who was seriously injured in the accident and there was an urgent need to save his life for want of advance. Thus, the conduct of the doctor was against the code of ethics for the medical practitioners and against the declaration of World Medical Association. The State Commission has referred to this declaration in its judgment which clearly states the rights of the patients and one right is to get the emergency treatment from any
hospital/medical practitioner.

Though it was alleged that the treatment of the other injured Rajwinder was taken up by the opposite parties as the parents of Rajwinder gave Rs.20,000/- to start the treatment, no such admission either by Rajwinder or his parents has been filed, nor any receipt given by the opposite parties to Rajwinder has been produced by the complainants. The court noted that as both the boys Sandeep and Rajwinder were injured and the opposite parties gave treatment to only Rajwinder and did not give any treatment to Sandeep, there has to be some reason for the same.

When the condition of Sandeep was so critical that he died on the way to other higher hospital, it was the duty of the opposite party hospital and the doctor to have given some initial treatment so that his condition could have stabilised and then he could have been shifted to another hospital. The name of the opposite party hospital is ‘Badyal Advance Bone Joint & Children Hospital’ and the name of the hospital itself suggests that it was an advanced centre for treatment in respect of the bones. Thus, it cannot be believed that the hospital does not have the facility to give the initial treatment to an injured. It is the duty of the hospital and the doctor to treat the injured if the same is brought to the hospital after accident.

The forum concluded that the doctor and the hospital were at fault for not providing treatment to the patient

It is clear in the present case that opposite party hospital and the doctor refused to treat Sandeep, who was brought to that hospital after injury in a road accident and it was the duty of the doctor to have treated him atleast initially. Outright rejection of treatment cannot be supported by any standard, which is clear in the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and others (supra)

The court also rejected the argument that the patient/complainant did not fall under the definition of consumer

It is clear that if a person promises to pay the consideration for hiring or availing any service, he shall also fall in the definition of consumer, therefore, even if anything was not paid to the opposite parties by the complainants, the complainants will fall in the category of consumer particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and others (supra), wherein the duty has been cast upon the hospital and the doctor to give the treatment to injured person who is brought to them after the accident.

The court then held deficiency on part of the hospital of not even providing initial treatment to the patient

Once the complainants are consumers even qua the opposite parties, the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties stands proved as they refused to give treatment to a person to whom they were duty-bound to treat initially as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and others (supra).

However, noting the fact that No evidence has been filed in the present case that the treatment of the patient was refused as the parents of the patient could not deposit Rs.20,000/- with the hospital for the treatment, the NCDRC reduced the compensation amount from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 10 lakh