Back
Holds Liable for Delay in Stroke Case
A Bench of the has held liable for , finding that the hospital failed to provide timely treatment to a patient suffering an acute ischemic stroke during the critical “” period. The Commission also strongly criticized the hospital for maintaining medical records in a “,” and awarded over ₹43 lakh in compensation.
The Case: A Stroke, a Delay, and a Tragic Outcome
The complaint was filed by Smt. P. Chandrakala, the wife, and her children, N. Vinay and N. Sameera, seeking ₹1 crore in compensation for the death of late N. Devender Rao, a 52-year-old government teacher. According to the complainants, on , Rao developed stroke symptoms—slurred speech and left-side weakness—at his home in Warasiguda around 1:30 PM. He was rushed to the Apollo Hospital branch in Secunderabad, but instead of receiving immediate emergency care, he was subjected to diagnostic tests. Hours later, the family was told no neurologist was available and was advised to shift him to the Apollo Hospital at Jubilee Hills.
The complainants alleged that this delay deprived Rao of timely stroke management during the “”—the first 4.5 hours when can significantly improve outcomes. After admission at Jubilee Hills, the patient underwent haemodialysis, and his condition fluctuated over the next several months. He suffered a cardiac arrest on , and passed away. The family argued that inadequate monitoring, understaffing, and lapses in care throughout the hospitalization amounted to .
Apollo’s Defence: Pre-existing Conditions and Compliance with Protocols
denied all allegations, contending that Rao suffered from multiple serious comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and a history of strokes. The hospital argued that thrombolysis was due to these conditions and that a multidisciplinary team provided treatment in accordance with . They also pointed to the ’s finding of no negligence. Further, the hospital claimed that the patient’s eventual death was due to his underlying illnesses and not any fault on their part.
The Commission’s Analysis: Evidence of Negligence and Suppression of Records
The Commission meticulously examined the evidence and found serious deficiencies in the hospital’s case. It noted that Apollo failed to produce complete emergency records from its Secunderabad branch, where the patient was first taken. “No record of the hospital at Secundrabad is filed to verify the condition of the patient and the timings of the visit,” the Commission observed, adding that this constituted “ of the case.”
Crucially, the Commission found that while symptoms began at 1:30 PM, the first medication was administered only at 7:13 PM. “We are of the view that, no proper treatment was given to the patient during the period,” the Bench stated. It rejected the hospital’s that thrombolysis was not done due to comorbidities, noting that this explanation did not appear in the and was therefore an .
The Commission also took strong exception to the hospital’s record-keeping. It noted that original treatment records and master charts were not produced, while the documents that were submitted contained overwriting, inconsistencies, and missing pages for several months. “This is not expected from the opposite party-1 Hospital which is having international accreditation,” the Bench remarked.
Key Observations: A Failure of Systemic Care
The Commission made several pointed observations regarding the quality of care:
-
On the : “When the patient said to had symptoms at his house… at 1:30 PM, not starting any treatment by 6:00 or 6:40 PM, leads to an inference that, the period was wasted by the opposite Parties due to their negligence.”
-
On the hospital’s conduct regarding staffing: The Commission found that the complainants’ allegation that doctors asked them to engage private nurses or take the patient home because he might die was corroborated by the testimony of one of the hospital’s own doctors, Dr. Narendranath, who admitted in cross-examination that he advised the family to arrange private nurses and that the patient could die of infections if he remained in the hospital.
-
On the shabby maintenance of records: The Commission awarded ₹1 lakh in compensation specifically for this, stating that the records were maintained in a manner wholly inconsistent with a hospital of Apollo’s claimed standards.
The Decision: Apollo Held
The Commission partly allowed the complaint, holding Opposite Party No. 1 ( Enterprises Limited) for the acts and omissions of its doctors and staff. The hospital was directed to pay:
- ₹40,11,876 towards (calculated based on the patient’s salary and )
- ₹1,00,000 towards
- ₹50,000 to the first complainant (wife) and ₹25,000 each to the two children towards and paternal affection
- ₹1,00,000 as compensation for shabby maintenance of records
- ₹25,000 as costs
The total compensation amounts to approximately ₹43.11 lakh. The Commission directed that the amounts be paid within 30 days, failing which the principal components would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of default.
The Bench, comprising Smt. Meena Ramanathan (Presiding Officer, Non-Judicial), Sri K. Ranga Rao (Judicial Member), and Sri V.V. Seshubabu (Judicial Member), emphasized that the delay in initiating treatment during the was the root cause of the patient’s deterioration. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to healthcare institutions that international accreditation does not absolve them of the fundamental duty to provide timely and documented care, and that any failure in this regard will attract consumer law remedies.
