Negligence In Medical Field Is Judged By Whether Injury Resulted From Negligent Act: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, held that medical negligence is not proven by a lack of care or an error in judgment if the doctor follows an acceptable practice, even if a better alternative exists. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant suffered a high fever and was diagnosed with dengue at...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, held that medical negligence is not proven by a lack of care or an error in judgment if the doctor follows an acceptable practice, even if a better alternative exists.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant suffered a high fever and was diagnosed with dengue at Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute/hospital. He was admitted to the ICU, where his platelet count dropped, and his eyesight deteriorated due to negligent treatment. Despite informing the medical staff, his condition worsened, leading to critical complications and eventual loss of vision. He was later referred to AIIMS and other eye specialists but remained blind. The complainant incurred significant medical expenses, lost his job, and suffered physical and mental agony. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, which allowed the complaint. It directed the hospital to pay Rs.3500000 as compensation for loss of eyesight and medical expenses.
Contentions of the Hospital
The hospital argued that the patient arrived in critical condition with symptoms indicative of severe dengue fever, including high fever, bleeding, and abdominal pain. He was immediately admitted to the ICU, diagnosed with severe thrombocytopenia and dengue hemorrhagic fever, and treated with platelet transfusions and supportive therapy. Despite intensive care, his vision deteriorated, and he was referred to AIIMS for further treatment. The hospital claimed no negligence, stating that all standard protocols were followed and that the patient's condition was managed with utmost care. The hospital denied any incompetence or deficiency in service, asserting that the complaint was baseless and should be dismissed.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission highlighted that negligence is defined as a breach of duty caused by an omission to do something that a reasonable person would do or doing something a prudent person would not do, as established in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. The essential components of negligence are duty, breach, and resulting damage. The commission observed that professional negligence, especially in the medical field, requires different considerations. A lack of care or an error in judgment does not automatically prove negligence. If a doctor follows an acceptable practice, they are not liable for negligence, even if a better alternative is available. This principle was upheld in cases like Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirau Health & Medicare, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital v. Master Rishabh Sharma, and Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh. It was observed that the State Commission found that there was a 12-hour delay in starting medication for the patient's blurred vision, which contributed to the loss of vision. However, this conclusion ignored the CT and MRI reports and expert opinions, which indicated no hemorrhage and suggested optic neuritis due to dengue. The patient had severe dengue, leading to brain bleeding and other complications, not an eye disease. The Medical Board of Maulana Azad Medical College and the Delhi Medical Council recognized ophthalmologic complications from dengue. The commission emphasized that the injury was caused by dengue fever, not by delayed medical attention.
Hence, the National Commission allowed the appeal and overruled the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute Vs. Tilak Raj Sikri
Case Number: F.A. No. 1882/2018