The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by AVM J. Rajendra, found Lifeline Nursing Home liable for deficiencies in service that contributed to the patient’s death due to treatment lapses.
Case Summary
The complainant’s mother was admitted to Lifeline Nursing Home for gallbladder surgery. The surgery allegedly led to the patient’s death from medical negligence, including issues such as broken teeth and anaesthesia failure. The complainant accused the nursing home and its doctors of misconduct by transferring the patient to the ICU after death and falsely implicating him and his brothers in a criminal case. Following a complaint, the patient’s body was exhumed for a post-mortem examination. The complainant also alleged that the surgery was illegal under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act because the nursing home was unlicensed, and claimed that proper consent was not obtained nor were risks adequately explained. After the District Forum dismissed the complaint, the complainant appealed to the State Commission of West Bengal, which ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the nursing home to pay Rs. 7 lakhs in compensation plus Rs. 50,000 in litigation costs. The nursing home then filed a revision petition with the National Commission.
Nursing Home’s Arguments
The nursing home contended that the complainant had no valid grounds for the complaint, asserting that all procedures under the WBCE Rules, 2003, were followed and necessary permissions obtained. It stated that the complainant’s mother was admitted based on the surgeon’s recommendation, who also enlisted the anaesthetist. Despite thorough treatment efforts, the patient, who had multiple health issues, died the following day. The nursing home emphasized that it had complied with medical advice and denied any service deficiencies or negligence, claiming that all necessary treatments were provided to aid the patient’s recovery.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that informed consent requires patients or their families to be aware of the risks, complications, and nature of the treatment. The Supreme Court in Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda affirmed that a patient has an inherent right to decide on treatment, and a doctor cannot proceed without consent unless it is urgent and life-saving. Although the complainant alleged that informed consent was not obtained, the nursing home and doctors maintained that detailed information was provided in Bengali and was acknowledged by signatures. The Commission found no deficiency in service related to consent. Regarding the duty of care, the Supreme Court in Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole established that doctors must provide care with reasonable skill and diligence, and failure to do so constitutes medical negligence. The Court in P.B. Desai v. State of Maharashtra highlighted that the duty to treat encompasses both ethical and legal dimensions. The West Bengal Medical Council’s investigation found the nursing home and doctors liable for treatment lapses. Despite the patient’s death shortly after surgery and attempts to conceal facts, the Commission upheld the State Commission’s findings of negligence but adjusted the suspension of the anaesthetist’s registration.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676