Not Every Death In Hospital Indicates Medical Negligence Unless Proven Otherwise: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that not every death occurring in a hospital setting can automatically be considered medical negligence based on an assumption of inadequate medical care. It was further held that in order to prove medical negligence, concrete evidence has to be provided. Brief Facts of the Case The deceased...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that not every death occurring in a hospital setting can automatically be considered medical negligence based on an assumption of inadequate medical care. It was further held that in order to prove medical negligence, concrete evidence has to be provided.
Brief Facts of the Case
The deceased wife of the complainant consulted the doctor at the hospital with stiffness and pain in her left breast. Her thyroid tests were conducted, and she was admitted for a tumor operation on her left breast. The doctor removed the tumor without conducting a prior biopsy. Following the surgery, her condition worsened, with increased pain in her breast and waist. The doctor advised against immediately informing the patient and proposed another operation. The initial surgery without a biopsy had aggravated her condition, leading to significant physical and financial strain. The complainants claimed that the doctor's failure to conduct a biopsy and refer her to a cancer specialist constituted medical negligence. The complainant filed a Complaint seeking compensation for medical expenses, mental agony, financial losses, and litigation costs, which was dismissed by the Commission. Consequently, the complainant filed an appeal before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Doctor
The doctor argued that the deceased initially sought treatment elsewhere before consulting him for stiffness and pain in her left breast. A tumor was found, and an excisional biopsy confirmed breast cancer. He promptly referred her to a cancer specialist after the diagnosis. The doctor emphasized that the biopsy was crucial for diagnosing cancer and denied any negligence in treatment. Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the main issue in the case was whether there was negligence or service deficiency in the medical treatment provided to the patient. It was noted that the doctor performed an excisional biopsy to confirm breast cancer, which is a standard diagnostic procedure. The records indicated that consent was obtained before the biopsy, and the patient was promptly referred for further treatment upon confirming cancer. In assessing the matter, the commission referenced legal precedents to underscore that medical practitioners must adhere to a reasonable standard of care and skill. The commission cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Chanda Rani Akhouri v. State of Bihar(1997) and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), which emphasize that medical negligence cannot be presumed solely based on adverse outcomes and that doctors must act in accordance with prevailing medical practices. Furthermore, the commission highlighted the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969) to underscore the duty of care that doctors owe to their patients, requiring them to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and competence. The commission concluded that it needed to determine whether the doctor's actions fell below accepted medical standards and whether compensation was justified based on these findings. The Commission referred to the case of Devarakonda Suryasesha Mani v CareHospital, Institute of Medical Sciences (2022), wherein it was held that the absence of specific evidence showing a lack of due medical attention or care could not question the medical judgment of the doctors regarding the treatment administered.
The National Commission found no deficiency on the doctor's part and upheld the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Hridaylal Sahu Vs. Dr. Roshan Upadhyay & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 2482/2017