Delay in Surgery: Consumer Court Directs Hospital to Pay Rs 10 lakh for Death of Patient
New Delhi: Noting delay in surgery by the doctors at a city-based Northern Railway Central Hospital, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has recently directed the hospital to compensate for the death of a patient who was diagnosed with "Liver Abscess ruptured into peritoneum, septicaemic, ac. Renal failure."
The State Consumer Court noted, "Despite such serious condition of the patient, the Doctors kept on delaying surgery which was so vital so as to save the life of the patient" and directed the Railway Hospital to pay Rs 10 lakhs with interest at the rate of 5% from the date of the alleged negligence within a period of two months.
Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President of the State Commission observed in this context that "Awarding of cost would surely serve the purpose of bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the hospitals for providing service to the human beings as human beings. Human touch is necessary; that is their code of conduct; that is their duty and that is what is required to be implemented more so when personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The case goes back to 2011, when the wife of the Complainant was having pain in her abdomen. Upon investigations done in Aligarh, it was found that the patient has an abscess and accordingly the doctors in Aligarh advised taking the patient to a better facilitated hospital. Consequently, the complainant took his wife to Northern Railway Hospital and the treating doctor in the Emergency ward after examining the patient referred her to the surgery department.
Thereafter, the doctor at the surgery department prescribed some tests and recommended admitting the patient to the medical ward. The doctor in the medical ward examined the patient again and opined it to be a case of "Liver Abscess ruptured into peritoneum, septicaemic, ac. Renal failure..."
The complainant had alleged before the Commission that despite such a serious condition of the patient, the doctors kept on delaying the surgery which was essential for saving the life of the patient. In fact, the patient remained unattended for an entire day, he said. During this period, the patient was left in the care of the nurses and it was only late in the evening of the next day that the treating doctor, upon finding the condition of the patient to be grievous, decided to operate on her.
As it was not possible at that time to conduct fresh investigations, the operation was conducted on the basis of the tests done in Aligarh.
The Complainant further alleged that the hospital lacked adequate facilities to treat the patient and also the surgeon who conducted the operation was not competent enough. Post-operation, the patient was shifted to the ICU and was put on a ventilator. However, the patient couldn't survive and died on March 29, 2011.
Alleging delayed treatment, lack of competence on the part of the treating doctor and lack of reasonable care and caution during treatment, the complainant approached the State Consumer Court and sought Rs 30 lakhs as compensation for negligent and incorrect treatment, Rs 10 lakhs for mental torture and harassment, and Rs 5 lakhs as costs of litigation.
The hospital, on the other hand, denied all these allegations and submitted that the patient was provided with the best available patient care possible. Besides, the hospital urged that the complaint didn't have any merit on the technical ground as well because Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi was a Government hospital and the complainant was not charged a single penny for the treatment of his wife. Therefore, when the hospital has done free treatment, the service rendered by the Government Hospital is outside the purview of the expression 'service' as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, contended the hospital authorities.
After perusing the details of the case and going through the contentions of both the parties, the State Commission referred to several judgments to define negligence on the part of a treating doctor or hospital.The Commission placed reliance on Black's law Dictionary, Hulsbury's Law of England, Supreme Court judgment in Jacob Matthew's case and in Bolam versus Friern Hospital Management Committee, Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health And Medicare Private Limited &Anr., 2019 etc.
Referring to all these previous judgments and textbook definitions, the Consumer Court noted,
"What is expected from the medical practitioner is to take due care and caution while giving treatment as per the established medical jurisprudence avoiding delay. In other words, if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, no question of deficiency would arise."
In the context of the present case, the Commission noted that the argument of the Complainant was supported by evidence that the patient after being brought to the Railway Hospital on March 18, was kept in the medical ward, ignoring her deteriorating conditions whereas she was required to be taken to the surgery ward.
The Commission also observed that the treating doctor of the surgery department had wasted good time, examined the patient and directed that she be admitted in the medical ward ignoring the condition of the patient. At this outset that Commission also referred to the diagnosis by the medical ward, i.e. "Case of 'liver abscess ruptured into peritoneum, septicaemic, ac. renal failure..."
"Despite such serious condition of the patient, the Doctors kept on delaying surgery which was so vital so as to save the life of the patient. The patient was left unattended in such grievous condition and no Doctor attended to her for the entire evening of 18 March till 19 th th afternoon. The patient during that period was left totally at the hands of the nurses only.No tangible or cogent evidence has been led by the Ops controverting this serious allegation except to the extent that the patient was looked after nicely and properly," noted the Commission after perusing the facts related to the case.
Further referring to the argument of the hospital that they had failed to evaluate the ailment despite undertaking multiple tests, the Commission noted that the counsel representing the hospital could not establish even remotely either from the pleadings or from the evidence that the hospital had done the spade work as was expected of them in due discharge of their duty as treating doctors.
"Their submission that due and proper care was exercised cannot be accepted for their inability to detect the ailment and commence the treatment. Timely detection and the treatment could have helped the patient and to the family," noted the Commission.
Further referring to the contention of the hospital that the treatment was free of cost, the Commission observed that a previous NCDRC order has overruled the contention and the top consumer court had also held earlier that "Non-exercise of reasonable caution in treatment amounts to negligence."
Thus, allowing the complaint, the Delhi State Consumer Court, after considering the circumstances of the case, the age of the patient and other necessary and essential factors, decided the amount of compensation and observed, "It would be just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) with interest at the rate of 5% from the date when the cause of action arose and negligence was admittedly done till the realisation of the amount, to the complainant for the suffering, mental pain and agony caused."
"The amount so awarded be paid by the OP hospitals being liable, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Awarding of cost would surely serve the purpose of bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the hospitals for providing service to the human beings as human beings. Human touch is necessary; that is their code of conduct; that is their duty and that is what is required to be implemented more so when personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution," further read the order of the Commission.
To read the order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-state-commission-medical-negligence-159065.pdf
