Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Girishchandra V. Bhatt & Ors. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sterling Hospital, Rajkot – Respondent
First Appeal No. 2491 of 2017
Decided On : 19-03-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate with Mr. Debopriyo Moulik, Advocate
The burden of proof in cases of medical negligence lies with the complainant, who must provide cogent evidence to establish the allegations.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - Section 19(1)(a) - Section 12(3), Section 18 - Section 24-A(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the power of the Consumer Forums to reject complaints at the admission stage, the requirement of expert opinion, and the burden of proof in cases of medical negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants' son suffered a bike accident and subsequently died due to alleged medical negligence. The State Commission dismissed the complaint at the admission stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of medical negligence, and the expert opinion presented was deemed vague and lacking evidentiary value.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the medical treatment, the admissibility of expert opinion, and the burden of proof in cases of medical negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cogent evidence to establish medical negligence and highlighted the burden of proof on the complainant. It also underscored the importance of expert opinion with evidentiary value in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the decision of the State Commission to dismiss the complaint at the admission stage.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the order dated 28-07-2017 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission) in Complaint No.CC/15/76 wherein the complaint was dismissed at admission stage.
2. The complainants’ (nos.1&2) son, Hitharth met with bike accident on 22-10-2013 at about 04:45 P.M., the truck run over Hitharth. Immediately he was admitted in Sterling Hospital (OP) at Rajkot. He was normal on admission with the exception of fractures. He was fully conscious for first two days without any major problems. All the reports were normal but thereafter his condition worsened and on 25-10-2010, he expired during treatment. Since the death of Hitharth had taken place solely due to negligence and carelessness in providing the treatment, the OP is solely responsible for the death of Hitharth. Therfore, alleging case of medical negligence complaint was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short “the State Commission”).
3. The OP filed a written version and denied all the allegations regarding negligence during the treatment of Hitharth. The injured had suffered multiple bone fractures. The treatment was proper with due care but the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest. The doctors at OP hospital tried every effort to save the injured.
4. On the basis of pleadings and arguments the State Commission dismissed the complaint at admission stage under Section 12 (3) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the instant appeal before this Commission.
5. At the admission stage I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, he submitted that Mr. Hitharth suffered multiple fracture injury on 22-10-2013 at Rajkot and he was admitted to Sterling Hospital for the treatment of simple fracture injuries. He was treated in ICU. For the first two days his condition seemed normal, he was talking with relatives, all the vitals and reports including CT scan was normal. However, from 24/25-10-2013 his condition started deteriorating. The OP failed to provide proper treatment. The haemoglobin level of the patient was going down which was not managed properly and further the lung infection was not controlled. Due to lethargic, negligent and sub-standard treatment from the OP, Mr. Hitharth passed away. His Post-Mortem (PM) report was stage managed by the OP. It was stated that the cause of death as “cardio respiratory failure due to poly trauma and its complications”. It was a simple fracture which could not resulted into the death of the patient. Therefore, it was negligence on the part of the OP.
6. The counsel further submitted that the State Commission has totally ignored Expert opinion and dismissed the complaint without giving any findings on the Expert opinion; thus, it was against the law. He further submitted that there was no evidence to show the patient suffered DIC. The D-Diamer test showed abnormality which was indicative of fibrin degradation products. Thus, there were chances of clot formation and break down in the body. It was missed by OP. Even the OP did not care for low level of haemoglobin, albumin, etc.. The OP did not perform investigation properly; therefore, it was a deficiency and negligence during the treatment. The counsel further submitted that dismissal of complaint at admission stage will cause severe injustice to the complainant. For this submission he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. V. N. Srikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011(1) SCC 53. The Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment held as below:
“17. We may hasten to add that the power conferred upon the Consumer Forums under Sections 12(3), 18 or 22 to reject the complaint at the stage of admission should not be exercised lightly because the Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of t
