E-Paper
Mohali: Consumer panel upholds negligence finding against hospital
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined widow’s plea for a higher compensation, holding that the amount awarded by the state commission was just and reasonable
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a cross-appeal filed by Max Super Specialty Hospital in Mohali and cardiologist Dr Sudheer Saxena, upholding a 2017 Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order that held the doctor guilty of medical negligence and the hospital vicariously liable. It also declined to enhance the compensation of ₹32.94 lakh.
The case relates to the treatment of Pooja Gupta’s husband, Rishi Gupta, who was admitted to the hospital on September 17, 2013, with prolonged chest pain. He had earlier undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery. According to the complaint, Dr Saxena advised implantation of a biventricular pacemaker, with the treatment package costing around ₹5.5 lakh.
Gupta alleged that on September 20, 2013, the doctor implanted a cheaper double-chamber pacemaker worth ₹45,000 instead of the recommended device and left the surgery incomplete, citing the unavailability of some equipment. She claimed a second surgery was performed on September 22 to implant the prescribed biventricular pacemaker. Rishi Gupta was discharged on September 24 but returned with chest pain on September 27 and died shortly after admission.
The state commission had held the doctor and hospital liable for medical negligence and awarded ₹32.94 lakh as compensation. It dismissed the complaint against the hospital’s medical superintendent, another doctor, the pacemaker manufacturer and an insurance company.
The NCDRC bench, comprising presiding member Inder Jit Singh and member Shashi Nandkeolyar, in its July 29 order, relied on contradictions in the hospital’s own records. It noted that an X-ray report dated September 20 recorded “ECPM with wires... in situ”, a nursing note stated “Patient CRT done”, and the hospital bill included a double-chamber pacemaker costing ₹45,000. The commission rejected the hospital’s explanation that the billing entry resulted from a software error.
The commission also observed that additional documents produced by the appellants regarding delivery of the pacemaker and leads before surgery did not resolve the inconsistencies. It said the PGIMER medical board report, which supported the procedure, did not address these contradictions. The commission also referred to the Punjab and Haryana high court’s March 11, 2024 judgment declining to quash criminal proceedings against the doctor and hospital, calling it persuasive.
The NCDRC also declined Pooja Gupta’s plea for higher compensation, holding that the amount awarded by the state commission was just and reasonable. It also upheld the finding that the pacemaker manufacturer could not be held liable due to lack of evidence of any defect in the device.
Dr Saxena and the hospital argued that the procedure was carried out in two stages because of the patient’s condition, which they said was an accepted protocol. They maintained that “ECPM” referred to an external temporary device, the ₹45,000 billing entry was a software error, and relied on a PGIMER medical board report, a Punjab Medical Council order and supplier records to contend that the complete pacemaker system had been available before surgery.
