NCRDC dismisses case alleging medical negligence in former Chief Justice JS Verma’s death
NCRDC dismisses case alleging medical negligence in former Chief Justice JS Verma’s death
His wife and children accused prominent doctors and major hospitals of dereliction of duties
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a medical negligence case filed by the wife and children of former Chief Justice of India, JS Verma relating to his death.
In the Pushpa Verma and 2 others vs Bhardwaj Nursing and Maternity Home Private Limited and 9 others case, a bench of Dr. SM Kantikar (presiding member), Justice (retired) Ram Surat Ram Maurya (judicial member), and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (technical member) concluded there was no medical negligence on the part of the Bhardwaj Hospital, Fortis Escorts Institute, and the Medanta Hospital or the doctors, including Sanjiv Bharadwaj, VA Bharadwaj, Piyush Jain, Naresh Trehan, and Randhir Sud, who treated CJI Verma prior to his death.
The NCDRC ruled, “The standard medical protocols were followed by all opposite parties; it was neither failure of duty of care nor any deficiency from the ops… The death of Justice JS Verma was not attributable to the act of OPs. We have deep sympathies for his death, but it cannot be the ground for liability. The complaint fails; it is dismissed.”
CJI Verma passed away in April 2013 due to multi-organ failure, at the age of 80 years. This was months after a three-member panel headed by him submitted a report proposing amendments to the criminal law in the wake of the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case.
In 1998, CJI Verma retired from the post, following which, from 1999-2003, he worked as the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
Following CJI Verma’s death, his wife and children accused the hospitals and doctors who treated him between November 2012-2013 of medical negligence. In their complaint, they submitted that while the former judge was diagnosed with coronary heart disease in 1998, it was being managed through a healthy lifestyle, regular medical check-ups, diet, and exercise.
The complainants highlighted that:
a) The prescription of the tablet Dabigartan (Pradaxa) with a combination of Clopidogrel and Amiodarone and other medicines (without considering his test results) indicated abnormal liver function and impaired blood clotting.
b) There was a failure to conduct appropriate tests.
c) Delay in conducting endoscopy at Medanta Hospital despite continuous bleeding.
d) Multiple transfusions at Fortis Escorts caused a fluid overload in the lungs and resulted in acute breathing problems.
e) Poor attempts to correct the hypocalcemia (low levels of calcium in the blood), failure to intubate on arrival, etc. at Medanta Hospital.
However, the NCDRC concluded that none of the accused were guilty of medical negligence. It added that the prescription of Dabigartan was not a wrong decision.
The order stated, "It was in the interest of the patient to save him from the cerebral stroke… From the documented literature and the textbooks on cardiology, internal medicines and pharmacology, Dabigartan is metabolized in the kidney. Therefore, as far as there is no severe liver impairment, it can be given in full dose... Dabigartan is a very safe drug.”
The Commission observed that Dabigartan was given at the lowest dose and there was no interaction between the drug and other medicines - Amiodarone and Clopidogrel.
The NCDRC also noted that in 2014, the Delhi Medical Council and the Medical Council of India had concluded that at no stage there was negligence on the part of the doctors.
It held, “To bring a successful claim, the victim or victim’s family bringing the action must prove all the ‘four D’s’ against the erring doctor/hospital. In medical parlance these stand for - Duty, Dereliction/Deviation, Direct (proximate) cause, and Damages. The complainants failed to prove these.”
While dismissing the complaint, the Commission referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court.
It reiterated that a medical practitioner was not liable simply because things went wrong from mischance, misadventure, or an error of judgment in preferring one reasonable course of treatment over another, as long as the doctors attended to a patient with due care, skill, and diligence.
