Medical Professionals Must Adopt Reasonable Methods Of Treatment, Despite Availability Of Different Medical Approaches: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant alleged that Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre (hospital) and the doctor provided negligent care to the complainant's husband, a diabetic medical practitioner. After an angiography revealed artery blockages, angioplasty was performed on the patient. Following the procedure, the patient experienced complications and was put on a ventilator, but no serious condition was initially disclosed. The patient suffered a brain haemorrhage due to excessive use of Heparin, which the hospital failed to diagnose promptly. Despite suspicions raised by the complainant's family, appropriate action was delayed. The patient was eventually transferred to another hospital for further treatment, where he remained in a coma and suffered severe impairments. The complainant claimed that the hospital's negligence led to significant physical and financial harm, including high treatment costs and the patient's loss of ability to work. The complainant spent around Rs. 50 lakhs on treatment and reported that the hospital's mishandling and lack of response to a legal notice led to a formal complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and the doctor filed a joint reply stating that the hospital is renowned for its cardiac services and relies on Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj for non-cardiac specialities, including neurosurgery. It was argued that the patient, with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, was admitted for evaluation and treatment. Despite successful angioplasty, the patient experienced severe complications, including pulmonary edema and brain haemorrhage. The patient was treated promptly with necessary interventions, including a ventilator, intra-aortic balloon pump, and emergency neurosurgery. The hospital and doctor denied negligence, asserting that all care was provided according to standard protocols. They also refuted claims of excessive charges and inadequate care, stating that the patient's treatment was comprehensive and the costs incurred were valid.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the Supreme Court, in Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health & Medicare (P) Ltd. (2019), highlighted that while varying approaches to medical treatment are acceptable, a medical professional must ensure their treatment is not unreasonable. Unreasonable practices, proven through the circumstances of a case, cannot be justified by professional opinions alone. In the present case, critical patient parameters were not monitored as required by WHO and national guidelines, constituting a failure to provide reasonable care. Furthermore, in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009), the Supreme Court stressed the need for a balanced assessment of compensation, acknowledging both inflated demands and minimal claims. Adequate compensation should reflect the severity of the case, recognizing the ongoing impact of severe injury on the victim and their family. Following these principles, the Commission calculated compensation based on the patient's loss of income, medical expenses, travel costs, and pain and suffering.

Consequently, the National Commission allowed the complaint and directed the hospital and the doctor to jointly and severally pay compensation amounting to Rs.65 lakhs, with interest at 6% per annum.

Case Title: Dr. Manju Dadu Vs. Fortis Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre

Case Number: C.C. No. 326/2012