Hospital's Delay To Shift Patient To Another Hospital For Proper Treatment Amounts To Negligence: Madras HC Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation

The Madras High Court has ordered lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a young mother who was forced to undergo three surgeries due to delay on part of a government hospital to shift her to a better facility, consequently kept away from her newborn baby for nine months.

A bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh observed,

"The 3 rd respondent hospital, after having realised that the petitioner cannot be given adequate care in the hospital, should have immediately shifted the petitioner to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. If this was not done and the 3 rd respondent was waiting for the arrival of a doctor who had gone on leave, the petitioner cannot continue to face pain and agony and under the given circumstances, the husband of the petitioner thought it fit to shift the petitioner to a private hospital. In fine, this Court holds that there was a clear negligence on the part of the 3 rd respondent hospital for not having taken proper care of the petitioner and for having failed to shift the petitioner to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital when the situation really warranted."

In the present case, the woman was admitted to the respondent hospital where she delivered a baby boy. While performing the delivery, the respondent doctor had to use the forceps, since there was a last-minute complication and it required stitches. However, on the next day, the puss started oozing from the stitches and the petitioner was experiencing great difficulty in urinating and defecating. Four days later the stitches were undone and redone 

The situation, however, did not improve and on the next day Dr. Ilanchezian examined the petitioner where he used a catheter to remove the puss and the petitioner was informed that the doctor will perform the second surgery. Seeing no progress from the side of the hospital, the petitioner's husband insisted on a discharge. She was later admitted to a private hospital where she had to undergo a three-stage surgery and was also admitted to the vascular care center for a period of 15 days.

The petitioner had therefore filed the present plea seeking compensation for the monetary loss towards payment of surgery expenses, medical expenses, travel expenses, and also rental expenses, and for the mental agony that she had to undergo in not being able to take care of her newborn baby for almost nine months.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the complication was common in any surgical procedure. The hospital was only waiting for the infection to get controlled to perform the operation and there was no wilful delay by the hospital. The petitioner's husband was also advised that the surgery can be done at the Coimbatore Medical College but he insisted on discharge. Thus, they submitted that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the hospital and sought dismissal of the writ. 

While deciding the issue, the court reiterated that under Article 226, the court could not get into serious factual disputes and must decide on the question of negligence only where it can be determined based on the materials available without involving any appreciation of evidence. The court also reiterated that the Apex Court had repeatedly held that a medical practitioner cannot be held to be negligent just because something went wrong while performing the procedure or surgery, in spite of the best efforts put in by the doctor and the doctor had exercised a reasonable degree of care, skill, and knowledge as is expected under normal medical standards.

In the present case, the procedure adopted by the respondent doctor could not be held to be negligent and the decision was taken in the interest of the petitioner and her baby. The perineal tear that resulted from the surgery also could not be held to be negligence as even according to expert opinion, the same was always a possibility in certain cases of forceps delivery. Thus, there was no negligence on the part of the doctor.

The court, however, noted that there was a delay on the part of the respondent hospital in handling the issue. Though they claimed that they had advised the petitioner's husband to take treatment in a hospital in Coimbatore, it does not find any mention in the discharge summary. The hospital was expected to take immediate steps to shift the petitioner to the Coimbatore Medical College if her situation could not be effectively handled in the hospital. In such a situation, the interest of the patient gains significance, and consent of the petitioner and her husband was not required.

The court also noted that even though the hospital claimed that they were waiting for the infection to reduce to perform the second surgery, the private hospital where the petitioner was later admitted had performed the surgery within four days of her discharge. All this would effectively show that there was negligence on the part of the hospital in taking proper care of the petitioner

Since the hospital was a government hospital, the State was vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Thus, the court directed the state to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

Case Title: S.Bhanupriya v. The State and others

Case No: W.P.No.26460 of 2007

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.Poongkhulali for Mrs.D.Geetha

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate (R1-R2), Mr.N.Damodaran (R3)