Summary of the Case
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, ruled that while various medical treatments are permissible, medical professionals must ensure their methods are reasonable.
Case Overview
The complainant alleged that Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, along with its doctor, provided negligent care to her husband, a diabetic medical practitioner. After an angiography revealed artery blockages, the patient underwent angioplasty. Post-procedure, the patient experienced complications, including being placed on a ventilator, yet no serious condition was initially communicated. The patient later suffered a brain hemorrhage due to excessive Heparin use, which the hospital failed to diagnose in time. Despite concerns from the complainant’s family, appropriate measures were delayed. The patient was eventually transferred to another hospital, where he remained in a coma with severe impairments. The complainant argued that the hospital’s negligence resulted in substantial physical and financial damage, including high treatment costs and the patient’s loss of work capability. The complainant incurred around Rs. 50 lakhs in treatment expenses and claimed that the hospital’s mishandling and lack of response to a legal notice led to the formal complaint. Thus, the complainant filed a case with the National Commission.
Opposition’s Argument
Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and the doctor responded jointly, stating that the hospital is well-regarded for its cardiac services and relies on Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj for non-cardiac specialties such as neurosurgery. They argued that the patient, with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, was admitted for evaluation and treatment. Although the angioplasty was successful, the patient suffered severe complications, including pulmonary edema and brain hemorrhage. The hospital provided timely treatment, including the use of a ventilator, intra-aortic balloon pump, and emergency neurosurgery. The hospital and doctor denied negligence and asserted that all care adhered to standard protocols. They also refuted claims of excessive charges and inadequate care, maintaining that the treatment was comprehensive and the costs were justified.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health & Medicare (P) Ltd. (2019) emphasized that while various medical treatments are acceptable, they must be reasonable. Unreasonable practices, as determined by case circumstances, cannot be justified solely by professional opinions. In this case, the Commission found that the patient’s critical parameters were not monitored according to WHO and national guidelines, representing a failure to provide reasonable care. Additionally, in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a balanced compensation assessment, considering both inflated and minimal claims. Compensation should reflect the severity of the case and the ongoing impact of severe injury on the victim and their family. Following these principles, the Commission calculated compensation based on the patient’s loss of income, medical expenses, travel costs, and pain and suffering.
As a result, the National Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the hospital and the doctor to jointly and severally pay Rs. 65 lakhs in compensation, plus interest at 6% per annum.
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/GreenWa