Hospital cannot be held accountable for accidental fall: NCDRC junks Rs 2.4 crore medical negligence complaint against Apollo Hospital Hyderabad
No Medical Negligence
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently exonerated Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for the medical negligence during the treatment of an elderly patient, who, during hospitalisation, suffered a fall from the hospital bed.
While the complainant claimed that the fall was due to negligence of the hospital in providing the necessary care and support services, the Apex Consumer Court concluded that there was no indication that the fall had been due to negligence on account of the failure to raise the side rails of the bed by the staff. Accordingly, the consequent fall cannot be attributed to the negligence in providing the support services but appears to be accidental.
The history of the case goes back to 2017, when the complainant, aged about 90 years, suffered some injuries due to a fall in the bathroom and was taken by his daughter to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. The complainant was advised for admission for five days for treatment of bacterial infection and observation.
It was alleged that at the time of admission, the patient and his daughter were assured of round-the-clock monitoring and care at the hospital. However, during the course of treatment, the patient suffered a fall from the hospital bed when none of the hospital staff was present. Consequently, he suffered injury on the occipital region, allegedly due to negligence of the hospital in providing the necessary care and support services.
The lacerated wound was sutured, and the complainant was, thereafter, also shifted to the Advanced Critical Unit in the hospital, wherein he remained admitted for about 06 days and was finally discharged from the hospital on 12.04.2017. Allegedly, at the time of discharge, the patient was in a bad shape and was advised to receive oxygen at home. After discharge, his condition allegedly deteriorated, and the patient was on oxygen support.
Pointing out that the patient was in a better shape before admission to Apollo Hospital, the complainant sought compensation of Rs 2,42,58,977 with interest @ 24% p.a.
On the other hand, the hospital claimed that there was no negligence in attending to and treating the patient at the hospital. The patient was treated conservatively with antibiotics and analgesics with nebulization. Further, based on the opinion obtained from dermatology, an anti-fungal was also administered. Thereafter, he was also provided with physiotherapy after explaining the details to his daughter. It was submitted that the episode of the patient's fall from bed was due to the failure of the complainant in seeking help of the attendant or using the call bell for support services.
The hospital stated that after the fall, the necessary suturing of the lacerated wound was done after obtaining the consent of the daughter of the complainant. Also, a CT Scan of the brain, along with a CT Cervical Spine, was undertaken. Further, no evidence of injury to skull, cervical spine, brain or spinal structure was observed in the CT Scan of the brain and cervical spine.
However, the complainant was shifted to the ICU, in view of the drop in saturation and owing to drowsiness. The patient was finally discharged after a medical opinion on 12.04.2017 since he was afebrile, asymptomatic, and doing better. Any subsequent deterioration in the health of the complainant was unrelated to the fall from the bed and injury to the occipital region, according to the hospital.
While considering the matter, the top consumer court observed that it is a well-settled principle that negligence is a breach of a duty caused by omission to do something, which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, as observed by the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another. The Supreme Court observed that simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident is not proof of negligence on the part of medical professional and conclusions drawn.
"It may further be observed that the onus to prove medical negligence is largely placed on the complainant, which can be discharged by leading cogent and probable evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved," observed NCDRC.
The Commission noted that the allegations in this case do not relate to negligence in the treatment provided to the patient/complainant but primarily it concerns deficiency of services in post-care admission to the complainant, who was admitted as an indoor patient and fell from the bed at 5.30 am on 05.04.2017.
Perusing the discharge summary of the patient , the Commission noted that the patient was admitted with a diagnosis of "post-surgical infection, carcinoma prostate under treatment, COPD, scalp lacerations".
Referring to it, the Commission observed, "On the face of record, complainant being aged about 90 years was not in the best of health due to multiple ailments at advanced age. There is nothing in the discharge summary or patient record to infer if the condition of the complainant had deteriorated on account of the said unfortunate fall from the bed on 05.04.2017 or had not been provided with requisite treatment in the hospital."
The commission observed that the allegations in the complaint attributed to the negligence in providing a round-the-clock attendant service at the relevant time on 05.04.2017. However, as per the hospital's stand, the patient is normally accompanied by an attendant in a private room and is required to call support staff if the patient requires aid for toilet necessity or otherwise at any hours.
"The stand taken on behalf of the opposite party appears to be acceptable and reasonable, as except for admission in ICU, the patients are normally accompanied by an attendant in private rooms. It is a matter of fact that no hospital provides individual 24x7 attendant in private rooms except for necessary staff in ICU, Emergency and General Wards for patient services. As per the notesheets, the complainant further appears to have been examined at 5.45 a.m., which would not have been feasible without the same being brought to the notice of staff by the attendant accompanying the complainant. The attendants are further generally apprised of taking due precautions for keeping the side rails of the bed raised and seek the services of support staff in case of any necessity. In the absence of any concrete evidence pointing that the complainant was not accompanied by an attendant at the relevant time and was left in the room solely at the responsibility of the hospital staff, negligence cannot be assumed on the part of the opposite party," observed the Commission.
"The notesheet dated 05.04.2017 at 5.45 am reflects that the patient had a fall from bed while he tried to get up and there is no indication in case the fall had been due to negligence on account of not raising of the side rails of the bed by the staff. In the facts and circumstances, the consequent fall cannot be attributed due to the negligence in providing the support services but appears to be accidental. We are of the considered view that hospital cannot be held accountable for an accidental fall, which may be also attributable to the patient or in case the attendant fails to seek the services of support staff. Merely because the fall had occurred is not the conclusive evidence of negligence by the opposite party," it further noted.
"It needs to be kept in perspective that the fall from the bed is not of a kind which could not have taken place in ordinary course of things if the patient voluntarily tries to get up from the bed without any support. The principle of maxim res ipsa loquitur is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, which may bespeak the negligence of the opposite party. Also, the subsequent death of the complainant in 2023 at the age of 95 years approx. cannot be attributed to scalp injury suffered from fall from the bed in April, 2017," the Commission held.
Accordingly, holding that the complaint is without any merit, the top consumer court dismissed the same.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/21/apollo-no-med-neg-342837.pdf
