Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.P. Tavade, President and
Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
Vijay Dashrath Naidu – Appellant
versus
Wockhardt Hospitals
Wani House and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.771 of 2011
Decided on 17.7.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Jayesh Jain, Advocate with Along Present
For the Respondents:Geeta Handa Khanuja Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical negligence – Consent for admission in ICU is not a legal requirement for admission in Intensive Care Unit for a life-threatening condition – Medico-legal procedure or formalities should not be a barrier to provide immediate medical attention to serious patients.
(2) In cases of gross medical negligence, court must adopt patient-centric approach and weigh lapses seriously.Cases Referred:

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Medical negligence – Deficiency of service – Death of young boy – Complaint dismissed by District Forum – In cases of gross medical negligence, court must adopt patient-centric approach and weigh lapses seriously – All experts corroborate severity of patient’s pre-existing conditions – Uncontrolled hypertension, smoking, alcohol use, and dyslipidemia – Stopping antihypertensive medication was a critical mistake by patient, which directly precipitated crisis – ICU refusal by relatives limited initial critical care response, though emergency protocols were initiated regardless – Entire sequence of care, from admission to death, was handled by a multi-disciplinary team, including cardiologists, ENT specialists, neurologists, intensivists, and nurses – Repeated CPR, defibrillation, insertion of pacemaker, ventilator support, and thrombolysis were administered in line with best practices – No gaps, delays, or lapses in treatment were found in review of patient’s hospital records – Death of patient was due to cardiovascular complications resulting from accelerated hypertension, aggravated by patient’s own discontinuation of medicine – Saving life is of paramount importance – In emergency, treatment should not be delayed, awaiting consent – Consent for admission in ICU is not a legal requirement for admission in Intensive Care Unit for a life-threatening condition – Medico-legal procedure or formalities should not be a barrier to provide immediate medical attention to serious patients – There is no negligence on part of respondents while treating deceased patient – Complainant’s son expired and due to death of his son, complainant and his family has suffered mental agony and harassment and they are entitled to have compensation – OP no.1 directed to pay compensation of Rs.18 Lakhs along with 6% interest. (Paras 6, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 23)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

Vijay C. Premchandani, Member.—

Facts of the Case:

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant (father of the deceased patient) alleging gross medical negligence and deficiency in service by the respondent hospital and its doctors, leading to the untimely death of his son. The son was a young boy, who had been admitted to the respondent hospital on account of bleeding from nose. The son of appellant was hospitalized as on 15/04/2010 between 10 to 10.30 p.m. for treatment nose bleeding of Ravindra Vijay Naidu (herein after referred to as “patient”). During the period of 15/04/2010 to 16/04/201, the respondent no.2 to 5 carried out the check-ups and treatment of the patient. As on 16/04/2010 as about 3.00 a.m. the patient fell down while going to the bathroom and complained of the chest pain and uneasiness and since then gradually the condition of the patient became serious, however, concerned doctors did not pay any heed to his complaint and they did not give proper treatment immediately. Though the condition of the patient itself became serious, but till 7 a.m. of 16/04/2010 the patient was not admitted to ICU. Thereafter, on 16/04/2010 at about 7 a.m. the patient was hurriedly admitted in ICU under the pretext that patient’s condition has become serious. The appellant contended that from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. as on 16/04/2010 when the respondents were treating the patient in ICU, none of the respondents informed about the condition of the patient to the relatives of the patient nor allowed the appellant to meet the patient. Only at 11 a.m. as on 16/04/2010, the respondent obtained signature of nephew of the patient by showing that patient is kept on artificial heart and about the high risk treatment to the patient. The appellant submitted that to his best understanding and information of the patient was died on 16/04/2010 at about 8.30 a.m. However, thereafter respondents unnecessarily continued the treatment on the patient till 12.30 p.m. to create the evidence to show that the treatment is given to save the life of the patient. Around 8.50 p.m. on 16/04/2010, respondents declared the patient as dead. The respondents ought to have admitted the patient from 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. as on 16/04/2010 in ICU when the patient complained about chest pain. It is also contended that the specialist in Cardiologist i.e. respondent no.2 was not called and clinical notes shows that only at 7 a.m. on 16/04/2010, it seems that only on telephonic certain instructions of the respondent no.2 was sought for diagnosis on the patient. The respondent no.1 hospital has not taken care of the patient and there is negligence on the part of the respondents, therefore, the original consumer complaint was filed before the Ld.District Consumer Commission. According to the complainant, the treating doctors failed to diagnose the condition properly, did not recommend necessary tests on time, and neglected to provide appropriate treatment despite the worsening condition of the patient.

2. The complainant further alleged that although the patient’s medical condition clearly warranted ICU admission, the hospital did not insist upon it. The hospital, on the other hand, contended that the father of the patient had refused ICU admission, but no documentary proof was provided by the hospital to substantiate this claim. Eventually, the patient’s health deteriorated rapidly, resulting in a cardiac arrest due to stopped blood circulation, which ultimately caused the patient’s death.

3. The District Forum has passed an order in consumer complaint no.309/2010 as on 30/06/2011 by dismissing the complaint, holding that no deficiency in service was proved against the hospital or its doctors. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Nasik, the complainant (present appellant) preferred this appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Grounds of Appeal:

4. The complainant/appellant raised the fo