In a significant ruling, a bench of MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA , PRESIDING MEMBER and AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.) , MEMBER of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has overturned the findings of the State Commission in a case alleging medical negligence against a hospital and its attending doctor. The case revolved around the treatment provided to a critically ill patient, whose condition deteriorated due to severe anaemia and haemorrhagic shock.

Key Observations of the Commission

The Commission highlighted that negligence cannot be established solely on the premise that an alternative course of action might have prevented the unfortunate outcome. It emphasized that:

• No medical professional would intentionally commit an act that would jeopardize their professional reputation.

• The principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) must be applied cautiously in medical negligence cases.

• The three essential components of negligence—duty, breach, and resulting damage—must be proved to hold a medical practitioner liable.

Findings of the Case

The case involved allegations that the hospital admitted the patient despite lacking an ICU, conducted blood tests despite not having a blood bank, and transfused blood of an incorrect group, leading to the patient's death. The State Commission had ruled that these factors constituted negligence. However, the NCDRC held that:

• The patient was in critical condition upon arrival, with a haemoglobin level of 3, necessitating immediate intervention.

• The treatment provided, including the administration of lifesaving drugs and blood transfusion, was in accordance with medical protocol.

• The Medical Board's report did not find any breach of duty or deviation from standard treatment practices.

• The allegation of fabricated records was not substantiated by concrete evidence.

Judicial Precedents Considered

The Commission relied on several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including:

• Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009)

• Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005)

• Balram Prasad vs. Kunal Saha (2014)

• V. Krishna Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015)

Final Verdict

Advocate Rishi Matoliya appeared for the petitioner hospital and doctors, while Advocate Zahid Ali represented the claimant.

The NCDRC concluded that the findings of the State Commission were based on conjecture rather than solid evidence. The revision petition filed by the hospital and the doctor was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. No costs were imposed on either party.

This ruling reinforces the principle that allegations of medical negligence must be backed by substantial proof, ensuring that professionals are not unfairly penalized for unforeseen medical complications.

Case Details:-

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2190/2016
SHEKHWATI JANANA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & ANR Versus ASHOK KUMAR BHATI & ANR.