Improper Oxygen Supply: NCDRC Upholds Liability Of Global Hospital For Negligence And Deficiency In Service
The NCDRC disposed of the appeals and upheld the Telangana State Consumer Commission’s order. The Commission held that the Global Hospital (Hospital) is liable for negligence and deficiency in service due to improper oxygen supply to the patient during the surgery. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 18 Lakhs with a simple interest rate at 9% p.a with an increased cost of Rs. 30,000/-...
The NCDRC disposed of the appeals and upheld the Telangana State Consumer Commission’s order. The Commission held that the Global Hospital (Hospital) is liable for negligence and deficiency in service due to improper oxygen supply to the patient during the surgery.
It awarded a compensation of Rs. 18 Lakhs with a simple interest rate at 9% p.a with an increased cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants.
The Hospital had filed the appeal for setting aside the order of the State Consumer Commission whereas the Complainants had filed the appeal for the enhancement of compensation granted by the State Commission.
Brief Facts:
The Complainants, wife, and the sons of the deceased were aggrieved when in 2009, the deceased visited the Hospital with a complaint of a heart stroke. The deceased underwent bypass surgery at the Hospital, performed by the doctor. However, during the surgery, there was an irregular and improper supply of oxygen, resulting in blood clotting in the vessels that carry blood to the brain. As a consequence, the brain suffered dysfunction, and the deceased fell into a coma in the operating theatre. To support his breathing, the deceased was put on a ventilator. Ultimately, the patient died.
The Complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency of service and medical negligence.
The State Commission allowed the complaint and found the hospital liable for negligence and deficiency in service. There was negligence on the part of the Hospital as there was evidence of improper oxygen supply to the patient during the surgery. However, the operating doctor was not held liable due to the lack of a direct contract with the complainants. The Commission also observed discrepancies in the consent forms. The doctor is considered the servant of the hospital, and under vicarious liability, the hospital is equally responsible for the actions of the doctor. The State Commission directed the Hospital to pay compensation of Rs.18 Lakhs together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
Contentions of the Parties:
Hospital
The Hospital argued that they provided competent and appropriate care to the patient, following all protocols and guidelines. They ensured informed consent from the patient and their attendant before the surgery and kept them updated on the patient's condition post-operation. Despite efforts and the involvement of a neurologist, the patient remained in a deep coma without improvement.
When a tracheostomy was deemed necessary, the Hospital obtained consent from the patient's relatives and informed them about the risks involved in shifting the patient for an MRI scan while on ventilator support. Upon the family's request, the Hospital discharged the patient, explaining the risks and prognosis. Unfortunately, the patient passed away after being taken back to their hometown.
Complainant
The complainants alleged that the patient was conscious and had no clots before the surgery. It was only due to medical negligence during the procedure, the health of the patient deteriorated. Even the Medical reports suggest insufficient blood supply to the brain. The complainants argued that the anesthetist's responsibility during surgery is to ensure proper blood and oxygen flow to the brain, and the hospital's failure to provide the operation CD raises suspicions of negligence.
Moreover, there are significant contradictions between the hospital's statements, medical records, and witness accounts, indicating medical negligence. The use of anti-coagulants also raises questions about how clotting in the brain occurred. Crucial tests recommended by the neurologist, such as the Carotid Doppler Test and EEG, were not conducted, and blood flow monitoring during the high-risk surgery was lacking.
Regarding the appeal for enhanced compensation, the complainants claimed that the awarded amount is inadequate considering the deceased's age, income, and status. The Complainants via various judgments from the Supreme Court and NCDRC supported their demand for higher compensation, suggesting that even using the "multiplier method" applied in motor accident cases, the compensation should be around Rs. 40 lakhs.
Observations of the Commissions:
The National Commission consisting of Presiding Member Dr. Inder Jit Singh upheld the State Commission's findings regarding negligence on the part of the hospital and the determination of liability. The Apex Consumer Commission agreed with the State Commission's decision to award compensation of Rs. 18 lakhs, considering factors such as the patient's age, status, and income, despite the complainants claiming Rs. 40 lakhs.
In conclusion, the National Commission modified the State Commission ordered and directed that the awarded compensation of Rs. 18 lakhs shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the State Commission's order, plus one month until the date of actual payment by the Hospital. Additionally, the Commission increased the cost awarded to the complainants from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.
Case Title: Global Hospital vs. P. Manjula & 3 Ors.
Counsel for Complainant: Advocates Mr. P.K. Mullick, Ms. Soma Mullick, Mr. Syed N. Shakeel, and Mr. S.K. Deuria
Counsel for Global Hospital: Mr. Shwetan K. Sailakwal, Advocate