The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chennai made a momentous ruling favoring a complaint against Mentor at the MIOT Hospital. The decision highlighted instances of negligence and service inadequacy.

Shanthi KalaiArasan filed a complaint accusing the hospital of failing to prepare for and handle flooding during the 2015 rainy season. Despite warnings from government agencies, the hospital experienced a power outage, resulting in the failure of crucial life support systems, such as ventilators in the Medical ICU situated in the basement. Tragically, this led to the deaths of 18 patients, including Shanthi's husband.

Presiding Judge Justice R. Subbiah held the hospital accountable for administrative negligence that contributed to the patients' unfortunate deaths. As a result, the Commission ordered MIOT Hospital to compensate Shanthi with Rs 20,00,000, along with an additional Rs 2,00,000 in costs.

Shanthi's husband sustained a head injury on November 11th, 2015, and received initial treatment for a brain hemorrhage at a different hospital. Because of the seriousness of his condition, necessitating intensive care, including ventilator support, he was transferred to MIOT Hospital for further medical treatment.

Shanthi asserted that the hospital had specific time constraints on attendants' presence. Because of heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding on December 1st, 2015, when she was informed about her husband's improving health, she couldn't reach the hospital on December 2nd and 3rd. Despite her efforts to obtain information from the hospital, she only discovered her husband's death through media announcements on December 4, 2015.

Her complaint underscored discrepancies in the death certificate attributing the cause of death to underlying ailments instead of acknowledging the lack of ventilator support due to the power outage during the flood.

Shanthi highlighted the predictability of the disaster and alleged negligence in failing to evacuate patients despite prior warnings. She sought compensation for the mental distress and financial hardships she endured. MIOT Hospital defended itself by citing the patient's medical history, which included alcoholism and multiple severe health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and lung complications. They argued that their restricted visitation policy for critically ill patients aimed to prevent infections. Concerning the floods, they attributed the situation to factors beyond their control, such as the overflowing Adyar River and the subsequent breach of the hospital's wall.

The hospital referenced a Madras High Court decision in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that dismissed allegations against them. The court directed the police authorities to conduct a thorough investigation and submit a conclusive report.

The hospital denied negligence, highlighting measures they had implemented to safeguard patients during the floods. They mentioned the existence of a "Disaster Management Unit" responsible for oxygen supply and backup electricity. They contested the assertion that the patient's death resulted from their negligence, attributing it instead to the patient's pre-existing severe medical conditions.

The Commission determined that the hospital's inability to relocate patients from the flooded Medical ICU despite receiving prior warnings amounted to negligence. This negligence, though not deliberate, was considered a breach of their obligation to ensure uninterrupted life support, as per the Commission's findings.

Underlining the hospital's responsibility to strengthen its disaster management framework, the Commission held the hospital accountable for administrative negligence. As a result, they directed the hospital to provide compensation to Shanthi.