Madhya Pradesh consumer forum directs hospital to compensate for negligence resulting in death of former judge's wife
Madhya Pradesh consumer forum directs hospital to compensate for negligence resulting in death of former judge's wife
Relies on several Supreme Court judgments for the amount to be awarded
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh, has directed the Birla Institute Of Medical Research (BIMR) Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs.12.5 lakh for causing the death of a former judge's wife due to medical negligence.
A bench of Gaurishankar Dubey, Rajeev Krishna Sharma and Anju Gupta directed BIMR hospital to pay an amount of Rs.11,77,560, along with interest of nine percent per annum, Rs.50,000 for mental agony, and Rs.10,000 as cost for litigation.
The complainant, a retired district judge, and presently the Chairman of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Gwalior, had filed a complaint against the hospital through advocate Anchit Jain.
The complainant sought CCTV footage and treatment papers from the hospital after he did not receive the jewels of his wife, who passed away due to COVID-19-related complications in the hospital. However, the hospital provided him with only the treatment papers.
The complainant claimed medical negligence on the part of the hospital and sought relief by moving the consumer forum.
The counsel for the complainant contended that as per the treatment papers, the patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of a high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan. However, no RT-PCR test was done to determine if she was actually positive.
He claimed that the deceased was given medicines that were not prescribed by the doctor. The patient was billed for eight Remdesivir injections, suggesting that she was administered eight injections, despite the government guidelines prescribing a maximum of six injections per person.
Finding deficiencies in the hospital's conduct, the Commission concluded that the negligence of the institution had resulted in the death of the patient. She was treated by a homeopathy doctor, but was administered allopathic treatment. It was malpractice on the part of the hospital for employing a homeopathic doctor in an allopathic institution.
The hospital contended that as per the Supreme Court ruling, to prevent harassment against doctors, a judicial body must be first formed and a report must be provided in a case of alleged medical negligence.
However, the Commission rejected the contention and stated that in the present case, a committee of three doctors headed by the Chief Medical Health Officer had prepared a report. So, there was no need to form a separate committee.
