New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ruled in favor of a neurologist and a hospital in Hyderabad, dismissing allegations of medical negligence. The decision emphasized that a much higher degree of gross negligence is required to hold a medical professional liable for negligence.
The case involved a complaint by a patient who alleged that the neurologist at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, had misdiagnosed his condition, resulting in incorrect treatment. The patient, who had been experiencing neurological symptoms since 2009, was initially diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) by the treating doctor in 2010. However, after his condition worsened despite treatment, the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bangalore later reported that the patient was not suffering from MS but possibly from CNS Vasculitis.
The complainant argued that the incorrect diagnosis led to inappropriate treatment, including the administration of incorrect medications, which exacerbated his condition, causing severe spasticity in his lower limbs and making him unable to walk without assistance.
However, the NCDRC, while reviewing the case, noted that the treating doctor had acted within medical protocols and had used available diagnostic tools, including MRI scans and pathological tests, to support his diagnosis of MS. While the NIMHANS report suggested an alternative diagnosis of CNS Vasculitis, the NCDRC observed that the evidence was inconclusive and that there was no clear diagnosis confirming Vasculitis. The commission highlighted that the NIMHANS report also had ambiguous language and did not definitively rule out MS.
In its judgment, the NCDRC reiterated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), stating that medical negligence must be based on a much higher degree of gross negligence. The Commission concluded that the neurologist’s actions, supported by expert consultations, clinical exams, and diagnostic reports, did not amount to gross negligence. The treatment provided was considered reasonable under the circumstances, and the complainant’s worsening condition could not be directly attributed to the medical professional’s actions.
The NCDRC noted that although the diagnosis was not entirely conclusive, the treatment plan followed the best available options and was in line with medical practices. The court also referenced medical literature indicating that spinal cord vasculitis, a suspected diagnosis, is extremely rare and difficult to diagnose accurately.
As a result, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, exonerating the neurologist and the hospital from any liability for medical negligence. The judgment underscores the need for a clear, overwhelming demonstration of medical negligence before a healthcare professional can be held accountable in legal proceedings.
