Bombay Hospital Cleared of Negligence in Hepatitis C Case; State Commission Overturns Ruling

Mumbai, MA – The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), in a significant ruling on medical negligence, has overturned a District Commission order that held Bombay Hospital and its doctors liable for a patient contracting Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) following a hysterectomy. The bench, comprising President Justice S.P. Tavade and Member Vijay C. Premchandani, emphasized that a complainant must definitively prove that the infection was a direct result of the surgery and that mere possibility or conjecture is insufficient to establish medical negligence.

The Commission allowed the appeal filed by Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre and its doctors, while dismissing the appeal from the patient's family who sought enhanced compensation. The original complaint has been dismissed.

Background of the Case

The case originates from a complaint filed by Mrs. Meena Shivappa Diwakar, who underwent a planned hysterectomy at Bombay Hospital on July 24, 2007. Approximately two months later, in September 2007, she developed symptoms like jaundice, fatigue, and stomach pain. Subsequent medical tests confirmed she was infected with Hepatitis C.

The complainants alleged that the infection was contracted during the surgery due to contaminated equipment or a lack of sterile conditions at the hospital, amounting to a severe deficiency in service. They sought compensation for the "grave, irreversible and irreparable physical, emotional, psychological, financial and moral harm" caused.

The South Mumbai District Consumer Commission had initially ruled in favour of the patient, awarding Rs. 5 lakhs as token compensation and a refund of medical expenses, holding the hospital and its eight doctors jointly and severally liable. Both parties appealed this decision to the State Commission.

Arguments from Both Sides

Complainant's Position: Mrs. Diwakar’s case rested heavily on the initial opinion of her consulting physician, Dr. Amrapurkar, who she claimed had told her the HCV infection was contracted during the surgery at Bombay Hospital. The family argued that since she was healthy before the procedure and developed the infection shortly after, the hospital was responsible. They filed an appeal seeking an increase in the compensation awarded by the District Commission.

Hospital's Defense: Bombay Hospital and its doctors vehemently denied the allegations. They argued that all standard protocols and a high degree of care were maintained during the procedure. They presented medical literature showing that HCV has an incubation period of 15 to 150 days and can be transmitted through various means unrelated to the surgery, such as dental work, tattoos, or even manicures. They pointed out that no pre-operative test for HCV was conducted as it was not a standard requirement, and no blood was transfused during the surgery, ruling out a common source of transmission.

Commission's Decisive Reasoning

The State Commission's decision hinged on a critical failure by the complainant to meet the burden of proof. The bench highlighted several key points that dismantled the patient's case:

1. Lack of Conclusive Evidence: The Commission noted that the complainant's entire claim was initially based on the alleged oral opinion of Dr. Amrapurkar. However, Dr. Amrapurkar submitted an affidavit explicitly denying that he had blamed the hospital for the infection. He affirmed, "he has not made any statements that the patient could have contracted Hepatitis "C" Virus due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No.1."

2. Inconclusive Expert Opinion: An expert committee from J.J. Hospital, formed at the complainant's request, was unable to provide a definitive opinion. The committee stated that due to the non-availability of crucial viral load reports from September and December 2007, which the complainant failed to produce, it could not establish a causal link between the surgery and the infection.

3. Failure to Prove Causation: The Commission found that the complainant did not produce any credible evidence to prove that the hospital's negligence was the direct cause of the infection. The ruling stated, "It was incumbent upon the complainant to establish the deficiency on the part of the opponents on the basis of the evidence. Possibility expressed by the complainant cannot be taken into consideration because the said possibility is not conclusive in nature."

The bench criticized the District Commission for ruling based on "possibility" and for disregarding the affidavit of Dr. Amrapurkar without sufficient reason.

Final Verdict and Implications

In its final order dated February 17, 2025, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by Bombay Hospital and its doctors (A/19/716) and dismissed the appeal by the complainant's family (A/19/707). Consequently, the original consumer complaint was dismissed, and the hospital was absolved of all liability.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that in medical negligence claims, the burden of proof lies squarely on the complainant. Allegations must be substantiated with concrete evidence and expert testimony that establishes a direct causal link between the medical procedure and the alleged harm, moving beyond the realm of speculation or possibility.