No cure is not necessarily the negligence: NCDRC

No cure is not necessarily the negligence: NCDRC

Dr. Lalit Bhasin succesfully represented Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals in a very significant judgement delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Deepak Gupta & Ors vs Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and Ors.

In the complaint the Complainant had claimed a compensation of Rs 1,08,90,299/- alleging medical negligence on the part of the Hospital and the doctors.

The case was instituted in 2006 and finally the judgement was given on 23.08.2022.

Dr. Lalit Bhasin representing the Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Commission, the judgement delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K Jhunjhunwala vs Dhanwanti Kaur wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that there has to be direct nexus between the ailment and alleged improper performance of the surgery. It was importantly held that in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery it cannot be assumed that the medical professional was negligent.

Based on these submissions, the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the Complaint. The judgement was delivered by the Bench consisting of Hon'ble President Shri R.K. Agrawal and Dr. S.M. Kantikar.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that negligence on part of a medical professional cannot be assumed in every case wherein the treatment in unsuccessful or the patient dies during surgery.

"It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party Hospital investigated the patient thoroughly and treated as per the standards. Despite every effort, the patient could not be cured; it shall be borne in mind that "No cure is not necessarily the negligence". It is pertinent to note that the patient was elderly, having several comorbidities. The death of the patient occurred almost one year after the discharge from the Opposite Party Hospital and during that period, he took treatment from different hospitals. Therefore, the cause of death and negligence cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party Hospital and the treating doctors"

Facts:

The patient (since deceased) was about 74 years old and he was the husband of Complainant No. 2 and father of the Complainants No. 1, 3 and 4. The patient was examined by the Opposite Party No. 2 Dr. Jawahar Dar (Neurosurgeon) at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals the Opposite Party No. 1 ('Hospital') since he was suffering from headache and dizziness. The MRI was conducted on 08.03.2004 wherein the patient was diagnosed with 'Pituitary Gland Tumor'. Subsequently, the patient was operated on 17.03.2004 and discharged from the Hospital on 20.03.2004.

On 02.04.2004, the patient fainted and was readmitted in the morning on 03.04.2004. He suffered a cardiac arrest and died on 11.04.2006 in the night.

During July to October 2005, the Complainant No. 1 made correspondences with the hospital in an attempt to settle the matter amicably, but to no avail. On 17.04.2006, the Complainant No. 1 once again wrote the Hospital for an amicable settlement; however did not get response from the hospital.

Aggrieved due to the gross medical negligence in the treatment by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed the present complaint and sought a compensation of Rs. 1,08,90,299 with interest @ 18% per annum.

Arguments on behalf of Complainants:

Relying on PGIMER Chandigarh vs Jaspal Singh, Sita Ram Srivastva vs. Sanjai Gandhi PG, Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. V.K. Ghodekar vs Smt. Sumitra and Apollo Hospital vs. Ashish Sanyal, the Complainant submitted in view of the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, an expected standard of care should be high. It was argued that in the instant case the negligence may not be the immediate cause of death but it contributed materially to the death of the patient.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

The Opposite Parties reiterated their evidence and chronology of treatment administered and further highlighted the medical treatment given to the Patient. Additionally, the cause of the patient's death was also put forth by the Opposite Parties.

Observation of the Commission:

To indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception.

Consequently, the Commission held that "it is difficult to attribute medical negligence against the Opposite Parties. The Complainant failed to prove medical negligence."

The Complaint was accordingly dismissed.