Important judgment with important points, that dismissed a case claiming Rs.1 crore + compensation filed against 5 Govt. Hospitals and 3 Doctors. - Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

New year start with a positive news..

A case claiming Rs.1 crore + compensation filed against 5 Govt. Hospitals and 3 Doctors, dismissed.

The Judgment that has dealt with important points :

a. Referral to Higher Center is not Negligence :

b. A Doctor from another Hospital cannot be called 'anytime' and 'anyhow'. 

c. It is not feasible for a Professor & Head to see each and every patient in his Unit and to countersign Medical Records. 

d. Expert opinion of  retired Professor of Forensic Medicine was rejected.

e. It is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every  case  in  his  professional  career but surely  he  cannot be  penalized for  losing  a  case  provided  he appeared in it and made his submissions.

f. The patient has a right to choose his medical centre for his treatment. But such right of the patient (to choose his centre for treatment) does not in itself per se imply negligence / deficiency on the centre which he leaves LAMA.

Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

Case details :

SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. V/s. RANAGHAT SD HOSPITAL & 7 ORS.

CC No.671/2019, decided on 20/12/2019

Coram : 

HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER.
Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F671%2F2019&dtofhearing=2019-12-20

Facts in nutshell :

1. The Husband filed a compliant claiming Rs.1,11,20,000/-  against  5   Govt. Hospitals in Kolkata and 3 attached Doctors, for alleged medical negligence causing death of his 62 yrs  beloved wife, Mrs. Snigdha Chakrobarty (the deceased patient) .

2. On 05.04.2017, the patient suffered heart attack and thus she was taken to Ranaghat SD Hospital at around midnight. It was alleged that Only ECG was done, ECHO and X-ray chest, blood investigation  were not done. The blood investigations, though advised, were not done. At about 4 a.m. she was referred to the High Dependency Unit (HDU) of the same hospital  as she developed symptoms of shortness of breath and rhonchi.  She was diagnosed as Chronic Renal Failure (CRF) with Left Ventricular Failure (LVF) and The Trop- T test done at 4.20 am was reported to be “Negative”.

3. Then she was shifted to JNM Hospital where she underwent certain blood tests like Total count, Different Count etc. But these tests were suspicious as timings of tests and values were not mentioned. From these the patient was shifted to Gandhi Memorial Hospital - 3rd Hospital, and there she was kept for a week. But patient's condition started deteriorating and severe allegations were made against said Hospital for not prescribing proper medicines and  not conducting proper tests and the Ambulance was also not  made available. On 12/04/2017 she was again refereed to another Govt. Hospital, and finally she was referred to IPGMER & SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, however for want of any Bed, she was shifted to its branch hospital SNP Hospital -4th Hospital, where she remained for about 2 weeks. However there also she was not attended properly by the concerned Doctors especially the Sr. Doctor - HOD.

4. It was alleged that in SNP Hospital did not call  a Cardiologist from IPGMER & SSKM Hospital and the patient was discharged with remark LAMA (Left Against Medical Advice) and was finally shifted to NRS Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata -the 5th Hospital, till her death. It was alleged that the 5th hospital also did not treat the patient properly, ECHO & Hemodialysis were not done . Thus ultimately compliant was filed.,  accompanied by an expert opinion from one Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, a retired Professor of Forensic Medicine.

Held :

1. The National Commission considered all the facts of the case and documents on record and gave it detailed findings thereby dismissing the compliant. The Commission has given finding on various legal aspects, which will be beneficial for others too. 

2. Referral to Higher Center is not Negligence :

Referring the patient to a higher center does not amount to any deviation from the standard of practice, but converse would amount to negligence i.e. not referring to higher center when any  hospital does not have the facilities and / or capabilities to deal with a case. 

3. A Doctor from another Hospital cannot be called 'anytime' and 'anyhow' :

It was held  that the allegation that a Cardiologist from one hospital which situated just opposite of another Hospital, with only a rail line intervening between the two campus, should have been called, on the face of it itself, is absurd "absurd". It was held that There is a system under which hospitals and doctors work.

4. It is not feasible for a Professor & Head to see each and every patient in his Unit and to countersign Medical Records :

There is no mandatory obligation, and neither is it feasible, for a Professor & Head to see each and every patient in his Unit, where adequate senior and junior doctors, residents, staff are available in the Unit. It was held that there is no need for a Professor & Head to “countersign” medical record prepared by doctors and nursing staff in his Unit.

5.Expert opinion of  retired Professor of Forensic Medicine was rejected :

It was held that The expert’s opinion should have been in the nature of a rational and reasoned analysis of the medical record, and he should have been qualified enough to express comments apropos the faculties / specialties in relation to which negligence / deficiency has been alleged. The Commission also held that an expert should not have endorsed the allegations of the complainant i.e. not putting a seal (a rubber stamp) or not writing the registration number below the signature,

6. We find the entire treatment record at various hospitals to clearly show that the patient, when under the care of doctors from 05.04.2017 till the death i.e. on 02.05.2017, was treated as per standard protocol in the case of CHD and LVF with the available facilities / wherewithal available with the different hospitals. We do not note any negligence / deficiency.

7. The Commission relied on various judgments of Hon. Supreme Court wherein it has been observed in favour of Doctors and limitations of Medical science has been considered and it has been held that a doctor is guilty only when it is proved that he has fallen short of the standard of reasonable medical care.  Mere allegation of negligence will be of no help to the Complainant.  It is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every  case  in  his  professional  career but surely  he  cannot be  penalized for  losing  a  case  provided  he appeared in it and made his submissions.

 The Commission also observed that  definition of  a Complaint says “any allegation in writing”. This does not mean that “any allegation” in writing” has necessarily to be admitted. However the Commission further clarified that by this judgment it should not be construed that an action for medical negligence/deficiency in service would never lie against Govt. Hospital or doctors working therein. 

This Judgment is very important as it has dealt with important aspects which every Hospital and Doctor must be facing every day. No doubt loss of loved one is truely irreversible. I still wonder had the patient been admitted in a Private well equipped hospital, whether situation would have been different ? 
Yet again proper documentation and proper treatment has saved doctors and Hospital from paying huge compensation. 

Thanks and Regards

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. ©