The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya dismissed a complaint Fortis Hospital and held that minor errors or accidents do not amount to negligence for medical professionals if they adhered to an accepted practice at the time. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant's wife suffered from cough and cold...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya dismissed a complaint Fortis Hospital and held that minor errors or accidents do not amount to negligence for medical professionals if they adhered to an accepted practice at the time.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant's wife suffered from cough and cold and visited Fortis Hospital, consulting a pulmonary surgery consultant . She was later admitted with a fractured ankle and under the care of an orthopaedic surgeon, who also advised a knee replacement. Despite being a high-risk case, the hospital performed knee and ankle surgeries. Post-surgery, the patient;s low calcium levels were ignored, leading to complications. Despite assurances, the patient experienced severe pain, infections, and complications, requiring multiple hospital admissions. Despite spending substantial amounts on treatment, the patient's condition worsened due to alleged negligence and mistreatment. She eventually died after being refused admission by Fortis and taken to another hospital. The complaintant filed a consumer complaint before the National Commisison on grounds of medical negligence, causing immense pain, trauma, and mental distress to the patient and her family.
Contentions of the Hospital
The pulmonary surgeon argued that he had been treating the patient since 1999. The patient was admitted with exacerbation of chronic lung and kidney disease, which he treated. When admitted again due to dizziness, falls, and ankle pain, he advised admission under an orthopedician, but the patient and complainant insisted on his care. Later, an X-ray revealed an ankle fracture, leading to a decision for surgery. Additionally, due to trouble with the right knee, the surgeon recommended total knee replacement, which the patient and her husband consented to. After the surgeries, the patient was discharged in stable condition, with the orthopedician providing the treatment despite her admission under the pulmonary surgeon. The hospital and the concerned doctors refuted the claims by the complainant and sought the dismissal of the complaint.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 defined negligence as a breach of duty due to omission or commission of an act that a reasonable person would or would not do. In the context of medical professionals, negligence involves three key components: duty, breach, and resulting damage. However, medical negligence is distinct from general negligence. Simple errors, lack of care, or accidents do not constitute negligence for medical professionals if they followed an accepted practice at the time. The Commision further observed that the standard of care is based on knowledge available at the time of the incident, not during the trial. These principles were upheld in subsequent cases, including Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2010) 3 SCC 480 and Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirau Health & Medicare Private Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 401. Consequently, the National Commission dismissed the complaint.
Case Title: Premdatt Chopra Vs. Fortis Hospital
Case Number: C.C No. 1014/2015