‘Supreme’ Relief to Doctors : Every death in Hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 

‘Supreme’ Relief to Doctors : Every death in Hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.

A compliant claiming Rs.10 Cr. Compensation dismissed.

'No DOCUMENTATION IS NO PROOF, POOR DOCUMENTATION IS POOR PROOF'

Always remember following permutation and combinations :

 1.Communication, 2.Documentation, 3. Communication of Documentation &, 4.Documentation of Communication.

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

Case Details : Civil Appeal No 4596 of 2022 Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani & Ors V/s. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors .

Judgment Link :

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11121/11121_2021_2_5_37673_Order_26-Aug-2022.pdf

1.  The 3 judges Bench comprising of HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA while upholding the judgment of  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (delivered by hon. Shri. S.M.Kantikar) has given big relief to doctors.

2.   The short facts which were before Hon. National Commission can be summarized as under :

 

a.   The Case goes back to 2014. The appellant before hon’ble Supreme Court – the original complainant  Smt. Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani filed a compliant claiming Rs.10 Crore compensation  for the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties during treatment of her husband - Mr. Raja Ram Mohan (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient'), who lost his life.

b.  On 18.06.2014 at 9.45 p.m., he had vomiting and was taken to Care Hospital. However it was alleged that the patient was not admitted in ICU till arrival of the Cardiologist or that Oxygen was not given and there was delay in the treatment of the patient.

c.   The Opposite Party No. 3 gave one injection to the patient upon which the patient immediately developed convulsions and cramps and he became unconscious. It was alleged that at 10.20 p.m., one assisting doctor came outside the casualty and informed that due to 70% of blockage of arteries of heart, the patient became unconscious. It was further alleged that the Opposite Party No. 3 demanded medicines worth Rs. 40,000/- and the Complainant paid the same on the spot. The Complainant repeatedly requested the hospital staff to call the Cardiologist, Dr. G.S.R. Murthy (the Opposite Party No. 2), but no avail. At 12' O clock midnight, the Opposite Party No. 2 attended the patient and patient was shifted to ICU, however, the patient expired at 1.06 a.m. on 19.06.2014.

d.  It was alleged that the Opposite Parties treated the patient casually. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint for alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service during treatment of the patient by the Opposite Parties. As her husband was drawing salary of KD1200 per month i.e. equivalent to Rs. 2,61,000/-, she prayed for compensation of Rs. 7 crores with 18% interest and Rs. 3 crores for mental agony from the Opposite Parties.

 

e.   Defense :

1.  The Doctors denied all the allegations. 

2.  The duty doctor in Casualty evaluated the patient immediately when the patient was brought to the hospital.

3.  The patient was diabetic for 20 years. As the patient had back pain and vomiting, therefore he was administered injection Zofer (commonly used to control Nausea and vomiting) and Pantocid injection (antacid). At that time the patient was not breathless and Oxygen saturation was normal. ECG was taken immediately which was showing subtle changes. The duty doctor called Dr. Swaroopa Rani the cardiology resident doctor on duty. She immediately examined the ECG which revealed minute changes.

4.  As the patient's relatives were creating unruly behavior, therefore, they were asked to leave the casualty. As the patient developed severe breathlessness followed by respiratory arrest, Code Blue was announced and immediately, as per ACLS.

 

Held : The link to NCDRC Judgment https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47846293/

1.  The national Commission dismissed the compliant. It was observed that the medical record of the Care Hospital is a vital document to prove the medical negligence, if any. It is apparent from the record that the Annexure C5 - the medical report, issued on 04.11.2013 is a normal report. We note after nine months of that report the patient got admitted in serious condition in Care Hospital. There was past medical history of diabetes and the ECGs were confirmatory of acute MI (STEMI). Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the patient developed cardiac problems during the nine months. The Commission further observed that “We note that the doctors made all efforts to resuscitate the patient from the cardiac arrest but could not revive the patient. In our view, they performed their duty with reasonable standard of care. We do not find any deficiency either from the hospital or the treating doctors.

2.  The commission relied on the recent judgment of Apex Court S. K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Dhanwati Kaur and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 28 wherein it was held that “that a doctor or surgeon cannot assure that the outcome of any surgery would be beneficial.  The court held that a professional might be held liable for negligence either if they do not possess the requisite skills that they claimed to have, or they don't exercise the skill which they have.” 

Hon’ble Supreme  Court upholding the NCRDC Judgment held that :

1.  Unless the appellants are able to establish before this Court any specific course of conduct suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctors on the line of medical treatment which was administered to the spouse of the first appellant.

2.   In the absence of any such material disclosing medical negligence, we find no justification to form a view at variance with the view which was taken by the NCDRC.

3.  Every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.

The Medicos are eagerly wait for such judgments. Don’t’ they ? In the current scenario e the Doctor-Patient relationship is going through a turmoil. The CPA has given more than enough opportunities to the Consumers to claim any amount of compensation they wish to claim, but there is no requirement of paying hefty court fees as one would require to pay in Civil Suits.  

In this case also the proper documentation seems to have saved the Doctors, thus always remember following permutation and combinations :

1.   1.Communication, 2.Documentation, 3. Communication of Documentation &, 4.Documentation of Communication.

No doubt, when one loses his/her dear one, such loss is irreversible. But that also does not mean that for every death, the Doctors are to be blamed. There are many cases, wherein on the facts, Doctors have been saddled upon Compensation in Crores and Lakhs. Thus facts play important role in every case.

Thanks and Regards

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©