Mumbai: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed the appeal filed by neurosurgeons of Fortis Healthcare, Jaipur, thereby holding them responsible for medical negligence while treating a patient suffering from ‘Mobile Atlanto-Axial Dislocation’ (AAD).
The commission, upholding the State Commission’s decision, has ordered the two doctors to pay ₹50 lakh in compensation to the complainant.
However, no evidence was found against the hospital and its Medical Superintendent, with the commission noting that there was no basis to establish even vicarious liability on the hospital.
“The State Commission’s order with respect to H. Bhartiya and Dr. V. Vaid is well-reasoned, liable to be upheld, and does not warrant interference… Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld, and the two doctors are held jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service towards the deceased son of the respondent. They are directed to comply with the order of the State Commission as directed,” the NCDRC stated.
The case dates back to 2011, when Bhagchand Meena’s son, who was suffering from AAD due to a childhood injury, was admitted to Fortis Escorts Hospital in Jaipur for surgery. AAD involves an injury to the spinal cord and cervical area, leading to progressive neurological deterioration.
As prior investigations had already been conducted in September 2011, the surgery was performed at Fortis Hospital on 24.11.2011 without any further diagnostic tests. Two days after the surgery, the patient was discharged. However, he was subsequently hospitalized at Mittal Hospital and passed away on 01.05.2012 due to cardiac arrest.
When the complainants approached the State Commission in Rajasthan seeking compensation, the court opined that negligence by the treating doctors during the operation had led to the patient’s deteriorating health and eventual death. Consequently, it directed Fortis Hospital and the treating doctors to pay ₹50 lakh in compensation to the complainants.
The hospital and the doctors filed an appeal against the State Commission’s order, arguing that the line of treatment, including the need for surgery and attendant risks, had been clearly communicated, and immediate surgery was advised.
The patient was admitted to the hospital, where two surgeries were performed on 23.11.2011 and 24.11.2011. They contended that the patient was discharged against medical advice and shifted to Alwar in a critical condition due to the high cost of medical care at the treating hospital.
The hospital had also issued a certificate on 08.04.2012, stating that the patient had been brought back on 26.12.2011 in a critical condition and on a ventilator. Since then, he had remained on the ventilator due to a collapsed left lung and quadriplegia.
The complainants argued that there was no urgency to operate on the patient. They alleged that the doctors performed the surgery on the upper spine without conducting proper pre-operative investigations and acted in undue haste.
After considering arguments from both sides, the NCDRC noted that in cases alleging medical negligence, the definition of ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act must be understood broadly to include services rendered by medical practitioners. The commission further observed that the concept of negligence in civil law differs from that in criminal law.
The NCDRC held that the State Consumer Court’s order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and did not warrant interference. However, it opined that the liability of the appellant hospital had not been established, and therefore, the order fastening liability on the hospital was set aside.
