Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18137
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Judge, J
Mr. Lavkesh Sehgal – Appellant
Versus
CEO, Rockland Hospital, Dwarka – Respondent
Complaint No. 123 of 2014
For the Complainant: [Complainant appearing in person]
For the Opposite Parties: [Counsel for the Opposite Parties]
Medical professionals cannot be held liable for negligence merely due to unsuccessful outcomes if they adhere to accepted standards of care during treatment procedures.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Medical negligence claim - Compensation sought for alleged negligence during antenatal care resulting in congenital heart disease diagnosed post-delivery - Evidence required to establish deficiency of service and negligent practice by healthcare providers - Court found no conclusive evidence of negligence or breach of duty of care by medical professionals involved. (Paras 19-22)
(B) Medical Standard of Care - The standard of care expected from healthcare providers is that of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field - A medical professional is not liable for negligence where the treatment follows accepted medical standards, despite the unsuccessful outcome. (Paras 21)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant alleged gross medical negligence during the pregnancy and delivery of his wife, which resulted in his newborn being diagnosed with life-threatening congenital heart disease after birth. Allegations included failure to perform necessary sonograms and lack of appropriate care due to perceived discrimination as a CGHS patient.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented did not support the claim of negligence against healthcare providers. The court found no breach of duty of care—negligence could not be conclusively established based on the standard of accepted medical practice.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the healthcare providers owed a duty to the Complainant's wife to perform further invasive tests based on the results of routine ultrasounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the medical practitioners acted within the accepted standards of care, and no direct nexus was established linking negligence to the adverse outcome faced by the patient.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed for alleged medical negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the complainant regarding failures in medical care. (Para 15) |
| 3. court discusses standards for evaluating medical negligence. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's ratio decidendi clarifying the threshold for legal negligence. (Para 21) |
| 5. final decision dismissing the complaint. (Para 22) |
1. The present Complaint has been filed under S.21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by Mr. Lavkesh Sehgal (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Complainant') against CEO, Rockland Hospital, Dwarka and 6 doctors (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Opposite Parties') seeking compensation of Rs.2 Crore for act of medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2. Facts : The Complainant's wife Mrs. Vimple Sehgal was under Antenatal care (ANC) during her pregnancy at Rockland Hospital (Opposite Party No. 1 - Hospital) under consultant Gynecologist - Dr. Kalpana Agrawal (Opposite Party No. 3). During the assessment of foetal growth and mother's well being, ANC periodic checkup, relevant lab investigations including Ultrasonography (USG) were done. The details of visits and the USG findings at Rockland Hospital are as under : 
According to the Complainant, if USG shows any anomaly which in turn risky to mother or foetus, the decision could be taken either to continue or terminate the pregnancy in specific time. Therefore, with the expectations of best treatment the ANC was continued with Opposite Party No. 3 at Rockland Hospital.
3. On 14.8.2014 at 9.33 a.m., the Complainant delivered a male baby at Rockland Hospital. Soon after birth, the baby was shifted to Neonatal ICU (NICU) as baby was not breathing properly, and unable to maintain the Oxygen saturation. On 15.8.2014, at around 10.00 p.m., the Pediatrician - Dr. Tina Goel (Opposite Party No. 7) called the Complainant to the NICU and informed that the baby had heart disease and asked to shift her immediately to BLK Hospital or Sir Ganagaram Hospital having Pediatric Cardiology facility. Immediately around 1 a.m., by ambulance, the baby was shifted to the NICU of BLK Hospital. In the morning, on 16.8.2014, Dr. Vikas Kohli, Director & HOD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology performed Echo Cardiograph (ECHO) and informed the Complainant that his Baby had 'Pulmonary Atresia with Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD)' (hole in heart) a Congenital Heart Disease (CHD). Dr. Vikas Kohli immediately over phone spoke to Dr. Kalpana Agarwal, who in turn informed that as per USG done during pregnancy, there were no signs of any Congenital Defect. As all USG reports including level - 2 (19 Weeks) scan showed normal findings including heart, therefore, she did not recommend any tests further. Dr. Kohli explained to the Complainant about the future implications of pulmonary atresia and VSD, that up to 5 years, the child needs multiple expensive surgeries and thereafter further treatment is necessary, depending upon the age. On 16.08.2014, the child was discharged from the BLK. The Complainant paid Rs.35,130 as hospitalization charges.
4. The Complainant alleged that, his wife throughout pregnancy was under ANC care of Opposite Party No. 3 but no ANC card was prepared. It was alleged that the hospital and Opposite Party No. 3 discriminated with his wife as CGHS patient. It was known that for CGHS the consultant Gynecologist will be paid only Rs.50 per OPD consultation, whereas the Private Patients pay Rs.500. The Opposite Party No. 3 gave less time and attention during every consultation. Therefore, she forgot to prescribe Fetal ECHO to know about Cardiac activity. The Complainant and his wife confronted Dr. Kalpana Agarwal and Dr. Gaurav Kapoor Radiologist (Opposite Party No. 2) about the baby's problem but did not receive satisfactory reply. The Complainant alleged that the three Radiologists working at Hospital namely (i) Dr. Manjul Jain - Opposite Party No. 4 (ii) Dr. Man
