New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has absolved a nursing home of medical negligence charges in a two-decade-old case concerning the death of a young woman who was undergoing treatment for an intestinal ulcer.
Allegations by Complainant
The case dates back to 2004, when the patient’s mother admitted her daughter to the nursing home with complaints of stomach pain, fever and an intestinal ulcer. The complainant alleged that after being unable to immediately deposit an additional ₹12,000 sought for urgent surgery, her daughter was instead given an expired glucose injection and a “poisonous” injection, leading to her death.
She further claimed that she was denied access to the treating doctor and medical records, and that the body was placed outside the nursing home premises.
Nursing Home’s Defence
The nursing home denied negligence, asserting that the complainant’s brother failed to arrange ₹12,000 and two units of blood required for surgery, and later sought discharge of the patient on his own responsibility. The facility claimed the patient was alive when discharged and that ₹4,560 of the deposit was refunded.
District Forum vs State Commission
In 2008, the Allahabad District Consumer Forum directed the nursing home to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation and ₹1,000 as litigation cost. However, this order was overturned by the State Consumer Commission, which held that in the absence of expert opinion, negligence could not be established merely because the treatment did not yield the desired result.
NCDRC’s Observations
The complainant challenged the State Commission’s decision before the NCDRC. After reviewing submissions, the bench held that:
- Allegations of administering expired or poisonous injections were based solely on the complainant’s affidavit.
- No expert testimony, post-mortem report, or clinical evidence was produced to substantiate the claims.
- Medical records showed the patient received immediate first aid consistent with standard protocols.
- The discharge note, signed by the complainant’s brother, confirmed that the patient was taken away voluntarily.
The Commission also observed that even if expired glucose was administered, it could not, by itself, be concluded as the cause of death without supporting medical evidence.
Legal Precedents Considered
The bench cited several Supreme Court rulings on medical negligence, including Kusum Sharma vs Batra Hospital, Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, and Savita Garg vs National Heart Institute, reiterating that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish a proximate causal link between the alleged negligence and the patient’s death.
Final Order
Upholding the State Commission’s decision, the NCDRC concluded:
“In the absence of cogent and probative evidence, mere assertions cannot sustain a claim for medical negligence. No deficiency in service or negligence is made out against the Opposite Parties.”
