Delhi pvt hospital told to pay

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has awarded a compensation of ₹65 lakh to the wife of a patient, who suffered from permanent brain injury and has been in a vegetative state for over 12 years due to gross negligence committed by the Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi.
Holding the hospital and its chairman liable, a bench of presiding member Ram Surat Ram (Maurya) and member Bharatkumar Pandya directed them to pay the compensation with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment, within a period of two months. The compensation, added with interest, would be ₹11,180,000.
The complainant, Dr Manju Dadu, had approached the commission in 2012 seeking compensation of ₹5 crore for medical negligence coupled with consequent injury and a refund of ₹2 crore paid towards medical expenses, stating that her husband was admitted in the hospital in a healthy condition, but Dr Seth and his team unnecessarily conducted angioplasty.
In her complaint argued by advocates Pravin Bahadur and Mohit K Mudgal, Dadu claimed that Dr Seth and his team committed gross negligence by giving heparin to her husband that caused brain hemorrhage, despite being aware of his diabetic condition. The complaint went on to add that the doctors took 72 hours in diagnosing brain hemorrhage and this inordinate delay in providing treatment caused grievous injury to her husband.
The bench observed that Dr Seth started angioplasty by ignoring the patient’s lung conditions resulting in severe pulmonary edema within half an hour of starting the procedure.
The gross negligence committed by Dr Seth, the commission observed, resulted in the patient suffering from permanent brain injury, which ultimately resulted in his vegetative state.
The commission in its 15-page order also noted that the doctor had neither evaluated the critical parameters of the patient nor monitored his blood parameters. This failure, the commission said, was in contravention of WHO guidelines as well as the guidelines prescribed by the Directorate of National Vector Borne Diseases Control Programme.
“OP 2 (Dr Ashok Seth) ignored the lung conditions of the patient and proceeded for angioplasty although the patient was co morbid and angioplasty was elective and not compulsory at that time. They cannot shirk their responsibility by saying that the patient and his daughter were doctors, and they had given their informed consent, knowing the risks and benefits,” the bench said in the August 7 order.
The bench added, “Due to gross negligence committed by OP-2 permanent brain injury has been caused to the patient. Even after surgery, on 13.05.2011, the patient remained in coma for almost one month. When he came out of coma, he suffered from complete paralysis of the left side and lost his ability to speak, hear or understand other people and is in vegetative state and he is totally unable to do anything and requires help for doing his routine work. To say that the patient or her family would have resisted a blood test, as is urged by the respondents, is merely a conjecture. Since no test was done, such an explanation cannot be accepted.”
The commission also observed that the doctors took six hours in shifting the patient to neurosurgery despite the patient’s critical condition.
In its order, the commission, while awarding compensation, also laid emphasis on the need of the courts to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the claim of the opposite party that nothing is payable. “Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller-coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. At the same time, we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity,” the commission maintained.