Delay In Conducting H1N1 Test Constitute Medical Negligence: NCDRC Directs Fortis Hospital To Pay Compensation

The Commission held that the hospital's failure to promptly test the patient for H1N1 constituted a case of medical negligence. As a result, the Commission restored the district commission's order, which had directed Fortis Hospital (Opposite Party no. 1) and the attending doctor (Opposite Party no. 2) to pay Rs. 3,64,075/- to the complainants, along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

Brief Facts

The complainant was filed by the family members of the deceased father (Lt. Sh. Ramvir Singh). As per the complaint, the patient had previously undergone two kidney transplants and was in good health. However, on December 7, 2009, he fell ill with symptoms of cough and fever. Subsequently, he was admitted to Fortis Hospital, where he received medical care from Dr. Manoj Singhal, a nephrologist (Opposite Party No. 2). Following his initial discharge on December 13, 2009, the patient's condition deteriorated again, leading to his readmission on December 18, 2009. During this second admission, he continued to be under the care of Dr. Manoj Singhal.

The family members of the deceased contended that despite undergoing numerous tests, the doctor failed to accurately diagnose or provide proper treatment to the patient. It was only on December 22, 2009, when the patient began experiencing nosebleeds, that a test for H1N1 (Swine Flu) was finally conducted. Following this, on December 23, 2009, the patient was transferred to Apollo Hospital where he died. The complaint also asserts that the hospital and the doctor were negligent in not promptly conducting the H1N1 test, which they believed could have potentially saved the patient's life.

Arguments of the Opposite Party

The hospital and the doctor denied allegations of negligence while contending that they provided the best possible treatment to the deceased patient. They emphasized that during the ongoing Swine Flu (H1N1) pandemic at that time, they sent a patient sample for testing to a government-approved hospital, which confirmed the presence of H1N1. According to them, they followed the government guidelines and immediately referred the patient to a government-authorized center for the treatment of H1N1 cases.

They contended that the Government of India had issued strict directives for hospitals to refer Swine Flu patients to designated facilities. They further claimed that they made all necessary arrangements for the patient's transfer to Apollo Hospital as per Ministry of Health guidelines. According to them, the patient had a severely compromised medical condition, which was the primary reason for his death.

Observations of the Commissions

The case initially began at the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, G.B. Nagar (U.P.) where the Forum found the hospital and doctor at fault, noting that they did not follow the government guidelines for testing and treating H1N1 cases. As a result, the District Commission ordered the hospital to pay compensation to the complainants. It held:

“The Complaint of the Complainants is admitted. Opposite Parties are ordered separately to pay Rs.3,64,075/- to the Complainants jointly and also pay Rs.5,000/- as case fee.”

However, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P., on appeal, overturned the district forum's decision, stating that the hospital and doctor did not act negligently.

Finally, when a revision petition was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), it held that the opposite parties' (i.e. Fortis Hospital and Dr Manoj Singhal) failure to promptly test the patient for H1N1 was indeed a case of medical negligence. Consequently, the Commission restored the district commission's order, which had directed Fortis Hospital and the attending doctor to pay Rs. 3,64,075/- to the complainants, along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Further, the payment was directed to be made within a period of one month from the date of passing the order, failing which the doctor and the hospital would be subject to an annual interest rate of 12%.

Case Title: Niraj Kumar Sindhu & Anr. vs. Fortis Hospital & Anr.

Counsel for the Complainant: Mr. Niraj Kumar Sindhu (In Person)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Rohit Puri and Mr. Aditya Awasthi, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order