Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1339
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, JJ
S.K. GANDHI – Appellant
Versus
FORTIS HEALTHCARE LTD. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 812 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. PRITHA SRIKUMAR, MR. SHUBHANSH THAKUR
For the Respondents: MR. SANJEEV PURI, MR. GEORGEY V.M., MR. ADITYA AWASTHI, MR. SURAJ KUMAR, MR. ALOK GUPTA, MS. PURNIMA MAHESHWARI, MR. AKASH AGGARWAL, NEMO
Medical establishments are vicariously liable for negligence demonstrated by their staff, failing to uphold patient care standards leading to fatal consequences.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) - Medical negligence - Allegations against healthcare providers for failing to detect and manage a cardiac condition timely leading to death - Complainants claimed damages for negligent service and consequences thereof - Despite several medical comorbidities, the hospital's failure to promptly address the patient's condition constituted deficiency in service. (Paras 11, 16, 18)
(B) Hospital liability - Hospitals are vicariously liable for the acts of their staff, particularly concerning patient management and treatment standards. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Complainants alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of Usha Gandhi due to the delay in treatment at a reputed hospital after an acute cardiac event was suspected but not managed in time. Complainants cited repeated requests for appropriate medical attention that were ignored.
Findings of Court:
The court found that essential procedures were delayed due to the complainants' refusal to consent to certain diagnostics, but the hospital and doctors failed to act promptly when critical conditions were evident, resulting in a lack of effective care before the patient’s deterioration.
Issues: The primary issues were the hospital’s liability for the patient’s treatment and whether the complainants' actions contributed significantly to the delay in care.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that hospitals and their staff must adhere to medical standards and that negligence initially resulting from patient refusal to follow medical advice did not absolve the hospital of blame in this case, especially given the apparent neglect during treatment.
Result: Complaint partly allowed; the hospital and relevant doctors are directed to pay Rs.20 lacs in compensation.
ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Advocate for the complainants, Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Georgey V.M., Advocate, for opposite parties-1, 5 & 6, Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate, for opposite party-2 and Mr. Alok Gupta, Advocate for opposite party-3. None appeared for opposite party-4.
2. S.K. Gandhi, his son and daughter have above complaint, for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay (a) damages of Rs.67890000/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of admission to first opposite party till realization; (c) Rs.10/- lacs as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deem fit and proper in the fact of the case.
3. The complainants stated that Usha Gandhi (the deceased) was the wife of complainant-1 and mother of complainants-2 & 3. Fortis Escorts Hospital (OP-6) claims to be the best hospital in India, being a part of Pan-Asia Group of integrated healthcare delivery provider, a NABH accredited multi-speciality tertiary care hospital with state of art technology and a high skilled and trained team of medical professionals, providing comprehensive health services. OP-1 claims to be manifestation of Fortis Group’s, who also claims to be most trusted and reliable healthcare service provider, having over 30 years clinical experience in the NCR that its approached is based on teamwork, patient centricity, state-of-art emergency response with highly competent team of specialist doctors, providing un-parallel standard of medical care. OP-2 to 5 were the doctors, posted in OP-1 at the relevant time. Usha Gandhi, aged about 61 years (hereinafter referred to as “the patient”) suffered with acute chest pain and had 2-3 episodes of vomiting. Complainants-1 and 2 took the patient to the Fortis Healthcare Ltd. (OP-1), where she was admitted in the emergency ward at about 8:00 hours on 23.02.2015 with the complaint of chest pain, vomiting and burning sensations in her chest. Complainant-1 accorded his consent, made the required payments and completed all the procedural formalities for admission of the patient. Dr. Naveen Arichwal and Dr. Abubakar (OPs-4 & 5) attended to the patient and prescribed some painkillers and advised electrocardiogram (ECG). Dr. Naveen Arichwal (OP-4) conducted EGC at around 8:26 hours. But the doctors did not take any further action on the basis of ECG report nor informed anything to the complainants about adverse ECG report. They shifted the patient in the ward for further investigation and management. Despite the painkiller being given, the patient did not have any respite from continuous severe discomfort. Dr. G.S. Chhabra (OP-2) visited the ward around 10:00 hours and examined the patient and the papers prepared by OPs-4 & 5. He prescribed number of further tests including bone density, swine flu, echo, chest x-ray and some blood tests, for which, the patient had to go to different departments. In spite of the fact that the patient had severe chest pain, she was not offered any wheel chair. On the repeated requests of complainant-1, a wheel chair was provided to the patient and then remaining tests were conducted. The tests were started around 11:00 hours and continued for about half an hour and during this period the patient continuously had persistent chest pain, discomfort and distress but the medical staff did not pay any attention and told that the doctors would attend the patient in due course. In the ward, she was served lunch at about 12:30 hours but till then her condition further deteriorated and she was unable to eat. Anyhow she took small portion of the meal and started vomiting. Still nobody attended to the patient despite repeated requests of the complainants from the nursing staff to call the doctor but the doctor was not informed on the pretext that the doctor was in OPD. The request of the complainants to show the test reports of the patient was also ignored. Till the evening, the pain and discomfort of the patient increased tremendously. In the ev
