The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant. Brief Facts of...
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant is a retired Colonel from the Indian Army who visited Max Super Specialty Hospital/opposite party, complaining of disorientation and loss of control of his left hand. After a CT scan, he was diagnosed with brain bleeding and changes in brain tissue density, requiring further investigations like MRI and Venography. Despite the urgent need for treatment/surgery indicated by the CT scan, the hospital staff and doctors failed to take immediate action or provide medical aid despite repeated pleas from the complainant's wife and family. Consequently, his condition worsened, leading to a seizure in the hospital's reception area. Only after this incident did the hospital admit him and provide treatment, but after a delay of four hours. Due to this delay, the complainant suffered paralysis on his left side and continues to experience seizures, necessitating lifelong treatment. It has been asserted that the hospital's negligence not only caused the complainant physical and mental suffering but also financial loss, as he lost his job, earning a salary of over Rs 1,00,000/- per month due to his condition.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The hospital responded to the allegations by denying all claims made by the complainant. They argued that the complainant had arrived at the hospital late and had waited in line like other patients. After consultation, a CT scan showed minimal traces of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH), and the hospital advised admission under the neurology team. The hospital contended that they had provided medical treatment according to protocols, and the operating doctors had performed their duties competently. Additionally, they claimed that the complainant had concealed his medical history, including ongoing treatment for Paraesthesia in both upper limbs. They argued that the complainant's complaint should be dismissed due to the suppression of crucial facts.
Observations by the Commission
The commission referred to the already existing law in the context of medical negligence established in the case of Seema Garg & Anr. vs. Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Anr., wherein the Commission emphasized that negligence is a fundamental aspect of medical malpractice, involving a breach of duty by failing to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. However, the Commission clarified that doctors cannot be deemed negligent if they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence. They stressed the importance of protecting medical professionals from undue harassment or humiliation, allowing them to fulfill their duties without fear. The welfare of patients remains paramount, but doctors should not be unfairly targeted with malicious legal actions, especially if they act in the patient's best interest.
In the present case, the Commission reviewed the patient's medical records and found that the hospital promptly advised necessary tests, including a CT scan, upon examination. Subsequently, upon detecting a minimal trace of SAH in the CT scan, immediate admission under a neurosurgeon was recommended and facilitated. Despite the patient's complaint about delayed admission, no substantial evidence was provided to support this claim. Furthermore, it was noted that the patient had chosen the Out-Patient Department (OPD) for initial consultation, which typically handles minor treatments and follow-up appointments, rather than the Emergency Ward for urgent cases. Consequently, the Commission concluded that there was no evidence of negligence or delay in treatment by the hospital, as the patient failed to substantiate their claims with substantial evidence.
Additionally, the commission cited the ruling in C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) v. S. Ramanujam, wherein it was emphasized that the burden of proving medical negligence lies with the claimant, and this burden can only be discharged through cogent evidence. Mere allegations, without supporting evidence, cannot be considered as proof. Since the complainant failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claims, the Commission concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the hospital. As a result, the complaint was dismissed, with no costs awarded.
The Commission did not find any merits in the complaint and dismissed it.
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Case Number: C.C. No. 1676/2017