Failure Of Treatment Is Not Prima Facie A Ground For Medical Negligence; SCDRC Delhi

In this case, the Patient (respondent) went to hospital (Appellant 1) where she got treated by a doctor (Appellant 2). She gave birth to a child, through operation. Thereafter one staff nurse, gave metro 100 injection to her, intramuscular and not intravenous. After some time, patient's hand started getting swelling and innumerable pain. On complaint various medicines were given, by doctors to her, but with no result. Rather condition of the hand kept on deteriorating day by day, in spite of doctor's false assurances to cure the same, on one pretext or the other. Finding no way-out patient had to visit another doctor to whom she could not produce treatment records, as doctors didn't provide the same to her, despite approaching them several times. The patient was not able to do household chores from her hand and has become totally dependent upon others. Aggrieved by the act of doctors and hospital the patient filed complaint with the District Commission prayed Rs. 18,00,000/- for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental pain and agony. District Commission held doctors and hospital liable for the deficiency in service as well as, adopting unfair trade practice and directed to pay Rs. 18,00,000/- to the patient.

District Commission stated that,

"Opposite Parties do have required professional skill and competence but their conduct fell below the standards of care, required from a reasonably competent doctor. Thus, there is clear cut negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. Due to which even after best efforts the problem in arm, hand and fingers of the complainant could not be cured and has. become permanently disabled while still she has a long life to pass and responsibility of her children and she has been left only as a helpless victim of Opposite Parties' negligence".

Aggrieved by the decision of District Commission the doctors and hospital filed an appeal before the Delhi State Commission under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before the State Commission, the appellants (Doctors and Hospital) submitted that, District Forum failed to appreciate that there was no evidence which shows that Metro 100 injection was given intramuscular to the patient, due to which the damage was caused to the patient.

The Respondent (Patient) submitted that, that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said judgment.

The issue for consideration before the State Commission was whether the Doctors and Hospital are guilty of medical negligence in treating the patient or not.

Commission after referring few judgments opined that, only the failure of the treatment is not prima facie a ground for Medical Negligence and in order to attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

Commission observed that, though the patient submitted that Metro 100 injection was given intramuscular and not intravenous by the nurse of the hospital, however, she has failed to bring on record any substantial evidence, oral or documentary, in support of her contentions.

Commission noted that, "the doctors and hospital gave appropriate treatment for 'Compartment Syndrome' to the patient free of cost, which includes daily dressing and medication even after her discharge from the hospital but the patient visited the doctor regularly only for 5-6 days after discharge and thereafter, stopped visiting. Looking into the aforesaid events, it is clear that the hospital had exercised due care and caution in treating the patient."

The bench noted that, neither any document is available, which could verify that the patient is not capable of doing daily chores from her hand and became dependent on others nor any disability certificate is produced by the patient from a competent hospital.

In view of the above, Delhi State Commission held that there exists no negligence on the part of the doctors and hospital as they had exercised due care and caution in treating the patient and the treatment given by them was proper and acceptable at that point of time.

State Commission set aside the judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Case Name: Dr. R. Singh v. Dr. Deepali Bisht

Case No.: FIRSTAPPEAL NO. 359/2017

Corum: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Sh. Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial)

Decided on: 5^th July, 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order