New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has exonerated Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow, and four of its doctors from allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of a child suffering from blood cancer who later died during treatment.
While setting aside the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (SCDRC) earlier order awarding ₹44 lakh compensation, the apex consumer court directed SGPGI to pay ₹5 lakh as compensatory damages and ₹1 lakh as litigation cost for failure to provide complete medical records to the patient’s family.
State Commission’s ₹44 Lakh Compensation Set Aside
Earlier, the SCDRC had directed SGPGI and the treating doctors from the Paediatric and Immunology departments to pay ₹30 lakh for mental agony and torture and ₹14 lakh as compensation to the deceased child’s family.
Challenging this decision, SGPGI and the four doctors approached the NCDRC, which found serious factual and legal discrepancies in the State Commission’s findings.
Allegations by Father of Deceased Child
The complainant, the child’s father, alleged that his only son died due to mismanaged and negligent treatment by SGPGI doctors. He claimed:
- No consent was taken for bone marrow tests, chemotherapy, or tracheal surgery
- The child was admitted to a general ward instead of a specialised hematology or immunology unit
- The isolation ward lacked proper facilities
- Anaesthesia was administered without permission
- Junior doctors failed to supervise treatment and patient shifting
He also raised concerns over two death certificates citing different causes of death—septic shock and leukemia—and alleged suppression of medical records from the child’s earlier admission in 1992.
Hospital’s Defence: Treatment as Per Protocol
Counsel for SGPGI and the doctors argued that the child was diagnosed with severe leukemia and was treated with the best available medical protocols at the time (1994). It was submitted that:
- All treatment was timely and appropriate
- The disease was terminal in nature
- No allegation existed that wrong medicines or incorrect dosage were administered
- There was no hematology department at SGPGI during that period
The hospital maintained that shifting the child to the isolation ward was done to ensure better monitoring, as it was located closer to nursing staff.
NCDRC Slams State Commission’s Reliance on Internet Material
The NCDRC strongly criticised the State Commission for relying on medical literature downloaded from the internet, treating it as expert opinion without placing it on record or giving the hospital and doctors an opportunity to respond.
“The State Commission padded up the entire impugned order with theoretical material in all probability downloaded from the internet… This procedure is in violation of principles of natural justice,” the bench observed.
The Commission noted that no independent medical expert evidence was led by the complainant to establish negligence.
No Proof of Medical Negligence: NCDRC
After examining medical records, pleadings, and evidence, the NCDRC held that suspicion or doubt cannot substitute proof of negligence.
“The facts indicate that the child was suffering from severe leukemia and the treatment then available, including chemotherapy, had been administered… Merely because the patient was kept in a general ward or shifted to an isolation ward does not reflect medical negligence per se,” the bench said.
The Commission also rejected findings on lack of informed consent, stating that absence of a guardian’s signature alone does not establish absence of consent when treatment records indicate proper care.
Doctors Fully Cleared of All Charges
The apex consumer court ruled that the findings of negligence against the four doctors were unsupported by evidence and based on irrelevant considerations.
“No clinching and convincing evidence has been brought on record to hold the treating doctors negligent,” the bench concluded.
Accordingly, all findings of medical negligence against the doctors were quashed.
Hospital Penalised for Poor Record-Keeping
Despite clearing the doctors, the NCDRC held SGPGI responsible for deficiency in service due to its failure to voluntarily provide complete medical records.
“The institute ought to have provided the documents on its own instead of compelling the complainant to resort to RTI,” the Commission observed.
Final Order of the NCDRC
The NCDRC passed the following directions:
- State Commission’s ₹44 lakh compensation order set aside
- SGPGI directed to pay ₹5 lakh as compensatory damages
- Additional ₹1 lakh imposed as litigation cost
- Treating doctors fully exonerated from all negligence charges
The amount is to be paid to the complainant within two months.
