Delhi consumer commission directs hospital to pay ₹15 lakh compensation for deficiency in service

Delhi consumer commission directs hospital to pay ₹15 lakh compensation for deficiency in service

New Delhi, The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a city hospital guilty of deficiency in service for failing to arrange a life-support ambulance and an accompanying doctor for a critically ill stroke patient, and directed it to pay ₹15 lakh in compensation.

Delhi consumer commission directs hospital to pay ₹15 lakh compensation for deficiency in service

It also rapped the hospital for failing to adhere to the elementary standards of reasonable care and medical responsibility expected of it.

In a judgment dated November 6, the commission, however, rejected the allegation of medical negligence against the treating cardiologist.

A bench of President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki allowed a 2015 complaint filed by Suresh Kumar, through his wife, against Metro Hospital & Heart Institute in Lajpat Nagar.

According to the complaint, Kumar, who had undergone dual valve replacement surgery at AIIMS in 2008, was rushed to Metro Hospital on November 13, 2013, with acute breathing difficulty, and an echo test showed a clot obstructing the artificial valve.

It alleged the patient's family was told only that an injection would be given, that the risks were not explained, and that the doctor had assured them everything would be alright within a few days.

It claimed that the hospital wasted about five hours, did not provide an ambulance or a doctor to shift him to another hospital, and that they eventually arranged an ambulance from another hospital themselves.

Kumar, the complaint said, has not recovered and is fully dependent on his family.

The hospital, however, denied the claims.

In its order, the commission relied on opinions from a medical board at GB Pant Hospital here, the Delhi Medical Council and the Medical Council of India.

"A perusal of the aforesaid medical opinions leaves no room for doubt that the patient was managed successfully using streptokinase as per the standard medical protocol," the bench said, adding that "prima facie, no medical negligence can be carved out" against the doctor.

The commission, however, found the hospital wanting on patient transfer or transportation, saying it "miserably failed" to discharge this "elementary responsibility".

"In the present case, the record unequivocally reflects that the hospital failed to make adequate arrangements for the transportation of the patient, thereby resulting in the wastage of precious and critical time at a juncture when the patient was in an extremely vulnerable condition and required immediate medical intervention," it said.

The commission said that it was disconcerting that the hospital maintained complete silence on this material aspect and failed to furnish any cogent explanation for its omission.

"We are constrained to observe that a hospital, particularly one which holds itself out as a premier medical institution and charges substantial amounts from patients for the medical facilities and treatment rendered by it, cannot absolve itself of its fundamental obligations towards patient care," it said.

The duty of a hospital, the commission said, does not come to an end merely on providing consultation or administering treatment within its premises.

"We further observe that the failure to arrange for an ambulance and appropriate medical supervision during the transportation of a critical patient is not a mere procedural lapse or an inconsequential administrative omission.

"It represents a failure to adhere to the elementary standards of reasonable care and medical responsibility expected of a hospital," the commission said.

It said that the gravity of such omission becomes all the more pronounced when viewed in the context of the patient's precarious medical condition.

"In matters concerning human life, precious time lost in arranging basic emergency medical facilities may have consequences which cannot subsequently be undone or compensated for," the commission said.

It said that the conduct showed "a serious dereliction of the duty of care" and constituted a deficiency in service.

The commission directed the hospital to pay ₹15 lakh as "compensation for the mental agony and distress caused to the patient and the attendants on account of deficient service in failing to provide the life support ambulance and putting the life of the patient at risk" along with ₹50,000 as costs for a protracted litigation of over 10 years.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.