New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has absolved Northern Railway Central Hospital, Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, and their doctors of allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of a young woman who died following surgery. While expressing deep sympathy for the grieving family, the Commission held that the evidence on record did not establish any lapse in medical care or deviation from standard protocol by the treating doctors.
Court Emphasises Evidence-Based Assessment
In its detailed order, the Apex Consumer Court observed that an unfortunate outcome alone cannot be construed as medical negligence. It emphasised that hospitals and doctors can be held liable only when there is clear proof of deviation from accepted medical standards or lack of skill, caution, or care. The Commission noted that mere dissatisfaction or the sudden deterioration of a patient’s condition cannot automatically translate to negligence unless backed by expert evidence.
Allegations Brought by the Patient’s Mother
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the mother of the deceased patient, who alleged that delayed treatment at both hospitals led to her daughter’s death. She sought substantial compensation, claiming that Northern Railway Hospital failed to admit the patient despite severe abdominal pain, and that Batra Hospital delayed emergency care for hours. Additional accusations included tampering with medical records, miscommunication by doctors, misleading information about the nature of surgery, and failure to conduct timely diagnostic tests.
Defence by the Treating Hospitals
Northern Railway Hospital argued that the patient’s initial vitals were stable and that treatment was given in accordance with the earlier ultrasound suggesting renal stone. The hospital further contended that the patient left on her own after consultation, undermining the allegation that admission was refused. Batra Hospital similarly denied all claims of delay, asserting that the patient was promptly evaluated, admitted, and stabilised with IV antibiotics. The hospital added that surgery was undertaken after a CT scan revealed ileocecal tuberculosis with perforation and peritonitis, and despite extensive postoperative care, the patient succumbed to septicemia and multiorgan failure.
Commission Rejects Claims of Deficient Care
After scrutinising medical records, affidavits, and pleadings, the NCDRC found no evidence indicating unreasonable delay or reluctance to admit the patient at the Railway Hospital. It observed that the patient’s condition at that stage did not justify the allegation that immediate hospitalisation was necessary. The Commission underlined that retrospective assumptions—after the eventual death—cannot be used to judge medical decisions that were made based on the symptoms and stability at the time.
No Merit in Allegations Against Second Hospital
Addressing the allegations against Batra Hospital, the Commission held that claims of delayed treatment were factually incorrect, noting that the patient reached the hospital much later than stated by the complainant. The bench also rejected accusations regarding tampering of medical records, stating that minor overwriting could occur in routine clinical documentation and did not prove foul play. The court concluded that the hospital provided continuous monitoring, multispecialty ICU support, and appropriate surgical and postoperative care.
Lack of Expert Evidence Weakens Complainant’s Case
The Commission particularly emphasised the absence of independent medical expert opinion to support allegations of negligence. It held that the complainant failed to produce medical literature or expert testimony demonstrating that the timing of the CT scan or surgery deviated from accepted medical standards. The bench reiterated that courts cannot question clinical choices of doctors when those choices fall within recognised medical practice.
Complaint Dismissed, Hospitals Exonerated
Ultimately, the NCDRC concluded that the patient’s death resulted from the natural progression of a severe intestinal perforation caused by underlying tuberculosis, a condition known to carry high mortality despite timely intervention. Finding no deficiency in treatment at any stage, the Commission dismissed the complaint and exonerated both hospitals and their treating doctors of all allegations.
