New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, recently ruled on a case involving Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and its medical practitioners. The commission found the hospital and doctors guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient, leading to her untimely demise. The ruling was accompanied by a compensation order of Rs. 5,10,000, which included Rs. 1,97,900 for the surgical procedure and an additional Rs. 15,000 for litigation charges.
The case revolved around the unfortunate events surrounding the patient, admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for medical care. Initially diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, she underwent treatment supervised by Dr. Shyam Aggarwal. A splenectomy procedure was performed later by Dr. Sudhir Kalhan, among others. However, discrepancies arose when the patient’s health deteriorated, leading to her readmission with dehydration complaints in June 2015. Despite medical efforts, she succumbed to her ailments on June 18, 2015.
Following the patient’s demise, the complainant faced difficulties in obtaining complete medical records and documents from the hospital, including the discharge summary, total bills, ultrasound films, and reports related to the removed spleen specimen. The hospital allegedly denied access to these documents, prompting the complainant to seek intervention from various authorities, including the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Medical Council, and the Chief Minister’s Office.
The commission’s findings revealed significant disparities between medical records and treatment outcomes, raising doubts about the accuracy of the diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Notably, an ultrasound report contradicted the earlier claim of spleen removal through splenectomy. The absence of CCTV footage of the surgical procedure further heightened suspicions regarding transparency and adherence to established protocols.
The commission invoked the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, presuming negligence based on evident facts, to infer lapses in the duty of care owed by the medical practitioners to the patient. It emphasized the overarching duty of care in healthcare services, stressing the importance of adhering to established standards and ethical guidelines.
The Commission held that,
“This Commission is of the view that a doctor owes the highest moral obligation, the duty to take care of the patient, since he is dealing with human lives. A medical practitioner who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient. It is crucial to remark here that the aforesaid discussion be treated as an advisory to all medical practitioners and members of the healthcare industry to be careful while dealing with human lives.“
In light of these findings, the commission partly upheld the complaint, directing the hospital and medical practitioners to compensate the complainant for physical and mental suffering. The total compensation of Rs. 5,10,000 includes specific amounts for the surgical procedure, mental agony, and litigation charges. Failure to comply within two months would result in interest charges at the rate of 9% per annum until the actual realization of the amount.