Order Name: Dr. Manju Dadu Vs. Fortis Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre
Case No.: C.C. No. 326/2012
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, has issued an important ruling. It emphasizes that while there are various acceptable methods of medical treatment, the approach taken by medical professionals must always be reasonable.
Case Summary
Dr. Manju Dadu filed a complaint against Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, alleging that the hospital and the doctor were negligent in treating her husband, who was a diabetic medical practitioner. The patient underwent an angioplasty after an angiography revealed artery blockages. Unfortunately, he experienced complications post-procedure and was put on a ventilator. The hospital did not initially disclose any serious condition.
The patient later suffered a brain hemorrhage due to the excessive use of Heparin, which the hospital failed to diagnose promptly. Despite concerns raised by the family, the hospital delayed taking appropriate action. The patient was subsequently moved to another hospital where he remained in a coma and suffered severe impairments. Dr. Dadu claimed that due to the hospital’s negligence, there were significant physical and financial damages, including around Rs. 50 lakhs spent on treatment. The hospital’s lack of response to a legal notice led her to file a formal complaint.
Hospital’s Defense
Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, along with the doctor, argued that the hospital is well-known for its cardiac services and relies on Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj for non-cardiac specialties like neurosurgery. They stated that the patient, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease, was admitted for evaluation and treatment. Despite a successful angioplasty, the patient had severe complications, including pulmonary edema and brain hemorrhage. They claimed to have provided prompt and necessary interventions, denying any negligence. They also refuted claims of excessive charges and inadequate care.
Commission’s Observations
The National Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health & Medicare (P) Ltd. (2019), which highlighted that while different medical treatments are permissible, they must be reasonable. Unreasonable practices cannot be justified by professional opinions alone.
In this case, critical patient parameters were not monitored according to WHO and national guidelines, which was deemed a failure to provide reasonable care. The Commission also referenced Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009), emphasizing the need for balanced compensation that reflects the ongoing impact of severe injury on the victim and their family.
Following these principles, the Commission calculated compensation based on the patient’s loss of income, medical expenses, travel costs, and pain and suffering.
Judgment
The National Commission allowed the complaint and directed the hospital and the doctor to jointly and severally pay compensation amounting to Rs. 65 lakhs, with an interest rate of 6% per annum.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of reasonable care in medical treatment. Hospitals and doctors must ensure that their practices are not only varied but also reasonable and in line with established guidelines. This ruling also highlights that failure to provide such care can result in significant financial compensation to affected patients and their families.
