Hospitals must provide timely medical interventions in emergencies, even without explicit consent, to uphold the duty of care and avoid negligence.

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member SUMMARY OF APPEAL MEMO Facts of the Case:

1. 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