Serious lapse in Patient care, contradictions in defence- Consumer Court slams hospital, orders Rs 16 lakh compensation
Medical Negligence
Raipur: Noting that there were contradictions in the defence and serious lapses in patient care, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Chhattisgarh, has upheld a compensation award of more than Rs 16 lakh against a Raipur-based hospital.
Filing the consumer complaint, the patient's wife had claimed that there was gross medical negligence on the part of the hospital that led to the death of her husband.
Even though initially the hospital had claimed that the patient in question was brought in dead, after cross-examination, the treating doctors at the hospital admitted that an injection was administered in an attempt to revive him.
The history of the case goes back to 2010 when the complainant's husband was admitted to the hospital, between December 18 and 24, for laser surgery on his urinary tract. Previously, he had suffered injuries in a 2008 road accident.
As per the latest media report by the Times of India, the treating doctors declared him fully recovered upon discharge on December 24. However, just two days later, on December 26, the patient started experiencing severe pain and was rushed back to the same hospital. The complainant alleged that the treating doctors administered an injection and began examining the patient. However, his condition worsened quickly and he died shortly after.
When the issue was brought up before the District Consumer Commission in Raipur, the treating hospital claimed that the patient had been brought in dead, and they denied any negligence on their part.
However, the doctors contradicted this statement during cross-examination, as they admitted to giving the patient an injection in an attempt to revive him. The district consumer court also noted the hospital's failure to submit crucial evidence and these omissions were seen as deliberate attempts to withhold information and further supported the claim of negligence.
The bench emphasised that the hospital had initially denied administering any treatment but later admitted otherwise, further confirming inconsistencies in its defence.
In its order, the District Commission had asked the hospital to pay Rs 15 lakh compensation, Rs 1 lakh for mental anguish, and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs, along with 6% interest.
Now, the State consumer court has also upheld the District Commission's order and it also criticised the hospital for not providing the medical records of the patient despite repeated requests.
