National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Exonerates SGPGI and Doctors

Background of the Case

New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently cleared the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI) and four of its doctors from allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of a blood cancer patient, who unfortunately passed away during the course of care. Initially, the State Commission had ordered the hospital and the involved doctors to compensate the deceased patient’s family with Rs 30 lakh for mental anguish and Rs 14 lakh for additional damages.

Appeal to the NCDRC

In response to this ruling, SGPGI and its doctors from the Paediatric and Immunology departments appealed to the Apex Consumer Court. Upon reviewing the case, the NCDRC overturned the State Commission’s decision, citing factual inconsistencies in its observations.

Compensatory Damages Ordered

While exonerating the hospital and its doctors from the negligence charges, the NCDRC mandated SGPGI to pay Rs 5 lakh to the deceased patient’s family as compensation for failing to provide complete documentation regarding the patient’s treatment. Additionally, a cost of Rs 1 lakh was imposed on the hospital.

Claims of Negligence by the Complainant

Details of the Complaint

The complainant alleged that his only son, who was battling blood cancer, succumbed due to negligent care provided by SGPGI and its medical staff. He claimed that at no point during the treatment was consent obtained for critical procedures such as a bone marrow test, chemotherapy, or even minor surgery on the patient’s trachea.

Allegations of Improper Treatment

The complainant further asserted that the patient was admitted to a General Ward rather than the appropriate Immunology or Hematology departments, which he argued were better equipped for such cases. He contended that this lack of proper care contributed significantly to his son’s deteriorating condition.

Concerns Over Patient Management

The father raised additional concerns regarding the hospital’s management, citing that junior doctors did not adequately supervise the transfer or treatment of the patient. He also highlighted discrepancies in the death certificates issued, which noted differing causes of death—septic shock on the first and leukemia on the second.

Defense by SGPGI and Doctors

Arguments Presented

In defense, the counsel for SGPGI and the doctors argued that the patient received appropriate treatment for leukemia in a timely and professional manner. They noted that the shifting of the patient to the Isolation Ward was to ensure better care, as it was located near nursing staff.

Critique of the State Commission’s Findings

The defense criticized the State Commission’s reliance on material obtained from the internet regarding treatment protocols, arguing that this constituted a misapplication of evidence. They contended that the findings lacked substance and did not accurately reflect the circumstances of the treatment provided.

NCDRC’s Observations and Conclusions

Evaluation of the State Commission’s Order

The NCDRC’s bench found that the State Commission had improperly utilized theoretical material from the internet as expert opinion, violating principles of natural justice. The Commission criticized the State Commission for not allowing the hospital and doctors a chance to refute this material.

Final Ruling by NCDRC

After reviewing the evidence, the NCDRC concluded that the treatment administered was appropriate and did not constitute negligence. It stated that the mere suspicion of negligence does not replace the need for substantial proof. The court found no evidence indicating that the treatment was inadequate or improperly managed.

Liability for Documentation Failure

Despite exonerating the doctors, the NCDRC held SGPGI partly liable for failing to provide complete medical records, which it deemed essential. Consequently, the court ordered SGPGI to pay Rs 5 lakh to the complainant and imposed a litigation cost of Rs 1 lakh.

Conclusion

In summary, while the NCDRC overturned the State Commission’s findings regarding medical negligence, it underscored the importance of proper record-keeping and transparency in medical practices. The ruling highlights the complexities involved in medical negligence cases and the need for clear evidence to support claims made by complainants.

To view the full order, click on the link: [NCDRC Order](https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/sgpgi-ncdrc-313711.pdf).

Also Read: Bengal doctor slapped Rs 2.5 lakh compensation for Tinea corporis treatment lapse, no medical negligence found.