Kamineni Hospitals held vicariously liable for medical negligence
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently upheld an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which found Kamineni Hospitals vicariously liable for the doctor's medical negligence.
Vicarious liability is a legal concept where one party is held responsible for the actions of another due to a specific relationship, such as that between an employer and employee. In healthcare, hospitals can be held liable for the negligent acts of their staff, like nurses or doctors, even if the institution itself was not directly at fault.
While considering the matter that involved the death of a patient (aged 27 years), the NCDRC bench had imposed a total compensation of Rs 20 lakhs. While the treating doctor had been asked to pay Rs 5 lakh, the hospital was ordered to pay Rs 15 lakh based on vicarious liability.
However, challenging the NCDRC order, the Hospital appealed to the Supreme Court. Further, the hospital also challenged the order dated 08.03.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was made on the ground that the liability had been imposed on the hospital and the doctor on the ground of negligence without any medical literature, evidence or any expert substantiating the said findings.
In their appeal, the hospital and the treating doctors claimed that they had treated the deceased son of the complainant, had followed the due standard of care expected of a medical professional. They argued that once a reasonable competent practitioner had taken caution and due care was observed, the guilt of medical negligence could not be said to be made out against the doctor as well as the hospital.
Further, relying on the medical literature on record, the Appellant claimed that it supported the procedure and proper steps were taken by the doctors of the hospital while providing treatment to the deceased. It was also claimed that due permissions were taken from the deceased's attendants.
The hospital submitted that there was neither any negligence nor incompetence on the part of the doctors or staff of the hospital,l and proper timing and medical standards were duly adhered to in accordance with norms and standard practices recognized and followed in similar circumstances, for which there could be no responsibility holding the hospital liable. Apart from this, the hospital also submitted that the amount of Rs 20 lakh compensation imposed by NCDRC was on the higher side and that too without any supportive documents.
While considering the matter, the top court bench opined the amount of compensation to be justified while noting,
"On the basis of the discussion as has been referred to including the medical evidence as also the medical records of the deceased patient, it is asserted by the Counsel for Respondent no. 1 that the findings are in consonance with the pleadings calling for no interference by this Court. Similarly, the quantum of compensation for the negligence as has been assessed by the NCDRC is also supported by contending that the deceased was 27 years of age and was a B.Tech graduate. He was also working in a soap factory and, therefore, the amount of compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is fully justified calling for no interference by this Court."
Further, the Apex Court opined that there was ample evidence and records to indicate that there was negligence on the part of the treating doctor and hospital.
"Having considered the submission made by the Counsel for the parties and upon going through the records of the case, it is apparent that there is ample evidences as well as records to indicate that there was indeed medical negligence at the end of the Appellant and Respondent no.2," noted the Court.
"The findings thus returned by the APSCDRC and NCDRC in this regard cannot be invalidated and are affirmed," it further observed.
The Court also noted that from the amount of Rs 20 lakh compensation, the treating doctor has already accepted the NCDRC order and even deposited the amount of compensation i.e. Rs 5 lakhs.
Regarding the compensation, to be paid by the hospital, the Apex Court observed,
"As regards the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is concerned which is assessed to be paid as compensation by the Appellant, it would not be out of way to mention here that while issuing notice in the present case, this Court had directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court to be invested in short term fixed deposit to be renewed from time to time. We have been informed that the said amount has increased with the auto renewal facility over a period of time. We are thus of the considered view that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant along with the accrued interest thereon would serve the interest of justice and the said amount of compensation would suffice as far as the liability of the appellant hospital is concerned."
Accordingly, the top court bench upheld the hospital's vicarious liability and ordered, "In view of the above, the decision of the NCDRC is upheld however, the amount of compensation with regard to the liability of the appellant – hospital would stand at Rs.10 lakhs along with accrued interest. The amount so deposited be disbursed to Respondent no.1 – the complainant on an application to be submitted to the concerned Registrar of this Court."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-hospital-vicarious-liability-284083.pdf
