A hospital owes a non-delegable duty of care to its patients; failure to implement recommended specialized treatment due to administrative or logistical issues (such as non-availability of equipment) constitutes medical negligence, regardless of whether attendants failed to procure said equipment.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MS PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

(i) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation amount in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant is the son of the deceased Suresh Kumar, who met with multiple grievous injuries in a road side accident occurred at about 10.45 PM on dated 07.03.2014 against which the FIR bearing No.211/2014 was registered at PS Vasant Vihar.

3. It is stated that the father of the complainant was admitted for treatment at OP No.1 hospital and the treatment was preferred by OP No.3 to 5. It is stated that during the period of treatment, the father of the Complainant developed Grade -II decubitus ulcer (Bedsore) for which the dressing was done every day and opinion of a Plastic Surgeon was also sought. The Plastic Surgeon advised VAC dressing; however, no such dressing was done by the concerned doctor of the OP No.1 Hospital and the patient was discharged without any advice. It is stated that due to the said negligence, carelessness and maltreatment of Opposite Party No. 3 to 5 the condition of the patient was gradually deteriorated. It is further stated that due to ill treatment, ultimately the father of the Complainant expired on 05.10.2014. It is stated that life of the patient might have been saved if the hospital authority alongwith the concern doctor had been treated the patient by their devotedness. It is stated that an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- has been spent on the treatment of the deceased. Therefore, OP Nos. 1 to 5 are severally and jointly liable to pay the amount as prayed for, by the complainant.

4. A perusal of record shows that upon notice the OP Nos.1, 3 to 5 filed their joint written statement, wherein, inter-alia, while admitting the admission and treatment of the father of the Complainant to OP No.1 hospital, The OPs stated that the patient Suresh Kumar was admitted with severe brain and chest injuries in an unconscious state with multiple rib fractures, hemopneumothorax and a flail chest, which were due to a road traffic accident. It is stated that he developed infection in brain and chest and required a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt to divert the cerebrospinal fluid as there was obstruction to its flow. After undergoing rigorous and lifesaving treatment for 73 days he was discharged on 20.05.2014. The patient was again admitted on 23.06.2014 for de-canulation of tracheotomy tube and was discharged on 24.06.2014. He was again admitted in emergency due to an episode of seizure on 28.06.2014 and appropriate treatment was given to manage the medical condition and to stabilize him. It is stated that the patient had grade IV bedsore when