Bhopal Memorial Hospital Exonerated from Medical Negligence Allegations

Background of the Case

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) of Madhya Pradesh has cleared Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, along with its cardiologist, from accusations of medical negligence linked to the treatment of a patient who died due to cardiac complications. The case traces back to 2003 when the complainant’s wife, experiencing chest pain, received treatment from the cardiologist.

Details of Treatment and Allegations

To evaluate her condition, the patient was recommended to undergo angiography, with an ambulance provided by the treating doctor. Allegations arose that during her transfer from the ambulance, the hospital dropped her, resulting in pulmonary edema. The complainant claimed that no investigations were conducted for two days, and on June 11, 2003, angiography and angioplasty were performed during which two stents were inserted. Moreover, on June 16, 2003, the patient was given A negative blood despite her blood type being A positive, which the complainant argued worsened her condition.

Following the procedure, the patient continued to experience chest pain, and due to a non-functioning Cath Lab, she developed acute septicemia by June 23, 2003, and was later diagnosed with renal failure on June 25. The patient ultimately passed away on June 27, 2003. The complainant accused the hospital and the doctor of withholding medical documents, suggesting their negligence contributed to her death, prompting him to seek relief from the District Commission.

Response from the Hospital and Doctor

In their defense at the District Commission, the hospital and doctor asserted that the patient’s health was already compromised upon her arrival. They contended that the blood transfusion did not cause her health decline and explained that medical documentation was withheld due to unpaid bills, which were resolved later. They refuted claims of negligence or inadequate service.

Following the dismissal of the complaint by the District Consumer Court, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Commission. The complainant’s counsel reiterated the case details, emphasizing the lack of senior doctor intervention and failure to refer the patient to a higher center, which the complainant argued contributed to her deteriorating condition.

Commission’s Findings

The Commission supported the District Commission’s findings, noting that the patient’s cardiac case file indicated her condition upon admission included pulmonary edema prior to hospital transfer, thus refuting the claim that it resulted from a fall. The Commission also acknowledged that consent for angiography was appropriately obtained, and no separate consent for angioplasty was necessary.

Furthermore, the Commission dismissed the allegations regarding the administration of A negative blood, stating that it is permissible for A positive patients. They also highlighted that the blood administered was not nearing expiration, reaffirming its safety.

Despite the patient suffering another myocardial infarction post-procedure, the Commission indicated that this could not be attributed to any negligence from the hospital or the doctor. The defense reiterated that the Cath Lab was the only one operational in the city at that time, and transferring the patient was not viable due to her critical state.

Conclusion

The Commission referenced Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that medical negligence must be established by demonstrating a failure beyond the ordinary skill of a doctor. Ultimately, the SCDRC concluded that the complainants failed to prove any deficiency in service, upholding the District Commission’s decision as valid and free from errors.

To view the order, click on the link below:
SCDRC Order

Related Article

Post-angiography hematoma: Consumer court comes to the relief of cardiologist.