IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Definition of Negligence – Following the Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma precedents, negligence is defined as a breach of duty through omission or commission that a “reasonably competent” professional would not have done. A doctor is not negligent simply because a higher level of expertise might have yielded a different result.
(2) Burden of Proof – The onus lies on the complainant to provide “sufficient material or medical evidence” (such as an expert opinion) to prove that the delay in diagnosis (CECT scan) was a deviation from standard medical protocol.
(3) Medical Judgment – The decision to treat symptomatically (initially for renal stones based on prior USG) or to stabilize a patient before surgery is a matter of expert clinical judgment. Choosing one recognized course of action over another does not constitute negligence.

ORDER

Bharatkumar Pandya. Member.—The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sarla Devi against the opposite parties - hospitals and their doctors alleging medical negligence, whereby daughter of the complainant lost her life on account of negligence and deficiency in the treatment.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are as under:—

2.1 Ms. Monika Singh, D/o the complainant was taken to OP-1 Railway hospital in the intervening night of 21.07.2015 (12 AM) with complaint of severe abdominal pain and vomiting since 5 PM. She was immediately examined by the casualty medical officer on duty and presumably on the basis of earlier Ultra Sound (USD) report dated 14.05.2015 shown by her relatives, patient was given few injections and after recommending few tests, complainant was asked to get her examined in Surgical OPD on tentative diagnosis to be that of Appendicitis. In the morning of 22.07.2015 at around 9.45 AM, the patient was again brought to Surgical OPD and was examined by the doctors. After examining, the doctor asked the brother of the patient to take her home but as she was not well and was still in pain, her relatives requested the doctors to admit the patient. Even after observing and informing the doctors of OP-1 hospital about the condition of the patient, the doctors did not show any concern for immediate and timely treatment for her. With no other option, family of the patient took her to OP-3 Batra hospital at around 4 PM on 22.07.2015 in the emergency ward. OP-3 hospital admitted the patient in the casualty ward after a delay of almost 5 hours. OP-3 hospital also did not give any emergency treatment to the patient even though she was suffering from severe abdominal pain. OP-3 hospital admitted the patient at 1.15 AM on 23.07.2015 and she remained unattended for more than 9 hours, with no treatment, no medication and no urgent and immediate medical steps taken despite her serious condition, which kept on deteriorating from the time she was brought to the emergency ward and further till the time she was finally admitted by the OP-3 hospital. In the morning of 23.07.2015 at around 10 AM, patient was referred to OP-5 Dr. Vijay Hangloo, who after examining the patient, recommended various tests and CT scan. As per complainant, OP-5 doctor did not even check the patient’s blood pressure and pulse rate at the time of examining her. Later on, fake readings and documents were prepared to show that her BP and pulse were normal in the morning of 23.07.2015. At 4 PM on 23.07.2015, the patient was taken to the Operation Theatre. The operation took about four hours and even after shifting the patient to the ICU, her family was not allowed to see her. The family members of the patient could see her only on the next day of the operation, that too from a distance, at around 11 AM on 24.07.2015. The consent form was got signed from the brother of the patient and after the operation, it was informed that a major operation was done and the patient’s large intestine was removed and her condition was serious. The complainant (mother of the patient) kept on asking for the complete treatment record but OPs did not provide the same to her. It was only when RTI was filed by the complainant that the complete treatment record was given by the hospital. The relatives of the patient were not allowed to meet or see her in the ICU by stating that her condition was serious. Finally, at around 12-12.15 PM on 26.07.2015, the patient was declared dead. The cause of death mentioned in the Death Summary is stated to be “Ileocecal thickening secondary to abdominal TB, perforation peritonitis, septicaemia, multiorgan failure”.

2.2 When patient was brought to or admitted in the hospital with severe abdominal pain, the first and foremost duty of the doctors was to examine the patient and get the tests/x-rays/CT scan/ultrasound etc. immediately done to know the nature of the disease, because slightest delay in the diagn