Apex Consumer Court Says No Evidence of Lapse in Treatment
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has exonerated Northern Railway Central Hospital, Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, and their doctors of allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of a 22-23-year-old woman who died four days after being hospitalised.
While expressing sympathy for the family, the Commission held that no material evidence established that the hospitals or treating doctors deviated from standard medical practice.
The bench noted, “A young patient losing her life is undoubtedly shocking and tragic. However, such an unfortunate outcome cannot itself be construed as negligence. Allegations must be judged solely on evidence, medical records, and established protocols.”
Complaint Alleged Delay, Wrong Diagnosis, and Miscommunication
The patient’s mother had sought ₹1.55 crore compensation, alleging that delayed and negligent treatment at both hospitals caused her daughter’s death.
According to the complaint, the woman first visited Northern Railway Central Hospital in July 2015 with severe abdominal pain. The casualty medical officer reportedly gave symptomatic treatment and tentatively suspected appendicitis but did not admit her despite repeated requests. Her family then shifted her to Batra Hospital after a nearly five-hour gap.
At Batra Hospital, the complaint alleged lack of emergency intervention, a nine-hour delay before adequate attention, late diagnostic investigations, and misrepresentation of the surgery as a “small operation.” The patient underwent major abdominal surgery on July 23, during which part of her large intestine was removed. She died on July 26, 2015.
The complainant also alleged tampering of medical records, inadequate ICU access, and poor communication by doctors.
Hospitals Reject Allegations; Cite Prompt Evaluation and High-Risk Condition
Northern Railway Central Hospital denied any delay or negligence, stating that the patient’s vitals were normal and treatment aligned with a renal stone diagnosis based on previous ultrasound findings. It stated the patient left on her own after evaluation and did not return for follow-up.
Batra Hospital also rejected all charges, asserting that the patient was immediately examined, admitted, stabilised, and administered IV antibiotics. After a CECT scan revealed ileocecal tuberculosis with perforation and peritonitis, high-risk surgery was performed.
The hospital argued that multidisciplinary ICU care, ventilatory support, antibiotics, transfusions, and close monitoring continued post-surgery, but the patient succumbed to multi-organ failure and septicemia—known complications of intestinal perforation.
NCDRC Finds No Delay, No Lapse, No Deviation from Protocols
After reviewing affidavits, records, and medical notes, the NCDRC found no basis to conclude that Northern Railway Hospital acted negligently.
The bench observed that the patient’s return home after the first visit, absence of alarming clinical findings, and normal vitals supported the hospital’s judgement. The Commission stated that allegations of refusal to admit were unsubstantiated.
Regarding Batra Hospital, the NCDRC found that the allegation that the patient arrived at 3:30–4:00 pm was “false and misleading.” Records showed she reached casualty at 11 pm, negating the claim of treatment delay.
The Commission acknowledged minor overwriting in records but held that it did not indicate foul play.
Most importantly, NCDRC emphasised the absence of any expert medical opinion to support claims that diagnostic delays or clinical judgments violated standard protocols.
High Mortality Risk in Intestinal Perforation Cases Noted
Addressing the surgical outcome, the bench noted that intestinal perforation due to long-standing untreated Koch’s disease carries a high post-surgery mortality rate of up to 17%.
The patient, the Commission said, unfortunately fell within that high-risk category. The court highlighted that detailed progress notes, ICU records, and consents confirmed that the hospital followed due care.
The bench concluded:
“We find no deficiency in the surgical or post-operative management. The unfortunate death was due to the underlying severity of the disease, not negligence.”
Complaint Dismissed; Hospitals and Doctors Exonerated
With no evidence of deviation from medical protocol, poor judgment, or lack of care, the Commission dismissed the complaint in its entirety and cleared both hospitals and doctors of any liability.
