New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has upheld a ruling against Delhi-based Max Balaji Hospital and its orthopaedic surgeon, confirming a finding of medical negligence in the treatment of a woman’s ankle fracture.
The Commission affirmed the District Consumer Court’s order, directing the hospital and doctor to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to the complainant for substandard treatment and prolonged suffering.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2010, when a 56-year-old woman was admitted to Max Hospital, Delhi, after sustaining a fracture in her right ankle due to a fall. She was treated under the supervision of Dr. Tomar, an orthopaedic surgeon, who performed surgery using two cannulated cancellous screws for internal fixation.
The patient was assured full recovery within six weeks. However, despite regular follow-ups and physiotherapy, she continued to experience severe pain and difficulty walking, even with support.
Patient Alleges Unattended Fracture
Unsatisfied with her recovery, the patient sought second opinions from two senior orthopaedists — one in Delhi and another in Odisha. Both doctors concluded that one of the fractures near the ankle had been left untreated and that the screws were not correctly fixed.
They opined that standard medical procedures were not followed, which led to the patient’s ongoing pain and disability. The complainant subsequently approached the consumer court, seeking ₹7.25 lakh compensation.
Hospital Denies Allegations
In its defense, Max Balaji Hospital and Dr. Tomar denied all charges, stating that the post-operative X-rays showed proper fixation and alignment.
They also argued that the typed discharge summary — which mentioned only two fractures — was the official record, while the handwritten version, listing three fractures, was prepared by an intern and contained clerical errors. The hospital maintained that the patient had received appropriate treatment and care.
District Commission Finds Glaring Discrepancies
The District Consumer Commission, after reviewing both discharge summaries, found major inconsistencies.
While the typed version mentioned two fractures, the handwritten one clearly included a third fracture — the medial malleolus fracture, which had been ignored during treatment.
The Commission observed that despite knowing about the third fracture, the doctor failed to treat it, amounting to gross medical negligence. The hospital and doctor were ordered to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation.
Hospital Appeals Before State Commission
Challenging the ruling, Max Hospital and Dr. Tomar approached the State Commission, arguing that discrepancies in records were minor and that the expert opinion from GTB Hospital supported their stance. They contended that the handwritten discharge summary was not final and that treatment was conducted as per medical norms.
State Commission Dismisses Appeal
The State Commission, however, rejected the hospital’s defense, holding that the treating doctor neglected the medial malleolus fracture, which was clearly recorded in the handwritten summary.
“The hospital cannot shift blame to an intern for preparing a crucial medical document,” the bench observed, terming the omission of vital information a sign of poor oversight and negligence.
Expert Opinion Deemed Unreliable
The SCDRC also found that the GTB Hospital expert panel had failed to consider prior opinions from Dr. Shankar Acharya (Sir Ganga Ram Hospital) and Prof. U.N. Misra (Odisha) — both of whom confirmed the ununited fracture.
The Commission ruled that expert opinions are only advisory and can be disregarded if they fail to address critical evidence.
Final Verdict
Upholding the District Commission’s order, the SCDRC concluded that Max Balaji Hospital and its surgeon failed to follow standard medical procedures, thereby violating the patient’s right to proper care.
“The appellants have evidently failed to adhere to the standard of reasonable care expected in such cases,” the Commission stated.
The ₹5 lakh compensation order remains in force, marking another case where the courts have reinforced accountability in medical negligence matters.
