Bhopal, January 20, 2026: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Madhya Pradesh, has cleared Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre along with its cardiologist from allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient who passed away due to cardiac complications in 2003.
Case Background
The case originated in 2003 when the complainant’s wife, suffering from chest pain, was treated by the hospital’s cardiologist. She was advised angiography to assess her condition, and an ambulance was arranged for her transfer. Allegations later emerged claiming that the patient was dropped while being shifted, leading to pulmonary edema.
Allegations Against Hospital
The complainant accused the hospital and the doctor of failing to investigate her condition for two days. Procedures including angiography and angioplasty were performed, with two stents implanted. The complainant alleged that a wrong blood group was administered, which worsened her condition. The patient subsequently developed acute septicemia and renal failure, ultimately leading to her death.
Hospital’s Defense
The hospital and the treating doctor refuted claims of negligence, stating that the patient’s condition was already critical upon arrival. They argued that the blood transfusion did not harm the patient, and that medical documents were initially withheld due to pending bills. They maintained that all necessary treatments were administered with due care.
District Commission and Appeal
After the District Consumer Court dismissed the complaint, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Commission. They argued that senior doctors were not consulted and the patient was not referred to a higher centre despite deteriorating health. The hospital’s counsel maintained that the patient was properly treated throughout her stay.
Findings on Treatment and Consent
The Commission reviewed medical records showing that pulmonary edema existed before hospital admission, disproving claims of injury during transfer. Consent for angiography was obtained from the relative, which was deemed sufficient for the subsequent angioplasty. Post-procedure, the patient’s condition temporarily stabilized, further negating negligence claims.
Blood Transfusion and Cath Lab Issue
The court clarified that administering A Negative blood to an A Positive patient is medically acceptable. The blood was safe and not expired. Regarding the Cath Lab being non-functional, the hospital stated it was the only facility available, and patient transfer was unsafe. The Commission agreed that the hospital provided the best possible care under the circumstances.
Conclusion and Legal Precedents
Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza vs Mohd. Ishaq, the Commission noted that medical negligence must be proven by evidence of failure beyond ordinary skill. The SCDRC upheld the District Commission’s decision, ruling that no deficiency in service was established against the hospital or the doctor.
