District Consumer Commission finds deficiency in service, lack of evidence from hospital side
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-2, Hyderabad, has held a Hyderabad-based hospital and a treating doctor guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service in a COVID-19 treatment case from 2020. The Commission has directed them to jointly pay ₹40 lakh compensation to the deceased patient’s family.
Allegations of Wrong Diagnosis and Unqualified Treatment
According to the complaint filed by the husband and son of the deceased, the patient was undergoing treatment during the first wave of COVID-19 in September 2020. She was treated for nearly 20 days and discharged after being billed ₹13.27 lakh.
The family alleged that the patient received improper treatment from a doctor who was not qualified under the guidelines of the Indian Medical Association. They claimed that incorrect diagnosis and negligent care led to the patient’s deteriorating condition and eventual death.
Use of Critical Drug Without Supervision
The complainants further alleged that the patient was administered Tocilizumab without proper supervision. Following this, she reportedly developed Pulmonary Fibrosis, which later proved fatal.
It was also claimed that despite billing for specialist care, no pulmonologist attended the patient, and she was treated primarily by a general physician.
Discharge Controversy and Financial Concerns
The discharge summary reportedly mentioned “Discharged at our Request,” but the family alleged that the hospital suggested discharge after their financial resources were exhausted. They claimed they were told the patient was recovering and could continue treatment at home.
Second Hospital Diagnosis
The patient was later admitted to Aware Global Hospital, where a pulmonologist diagnosed advanced pulmonary fibrosis. Doctors reportedly informed the family that only supportive care was possible and survival chances were minimal.
Hospital’s Defense Rejected
The hospital denied all allegations, stating that qualified specialists treated the patient and that the doctor in question was only a personal physician. It also argued that the patient was discharged against medical advice and died 72 days later, claiming no direct link between treatment and death.
आयोग का फैसला
The Commission noted that the complainants submitted substantial evidence, including medical records, bills, discharge summaries, and FIRs. In contrast, the hospital and the doctor failed to provide supporting documentation for their defense.
Based on the available evidence, the Commission concluded that there was clear negligence and deficiency in service, leading to the patient’s death, and awarded ₹40 lakh compensation to the family.
