Order Name: Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute Vs. Tilak Raj Sikri
Case No.: F.A. No. 1882/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, recently ruled on a case involving medical negligence. The commission stated that a doctor is not guilty of negligence if they follow an acceptable medical practice, even if a potentially better alternative exists.
Case Background
The complainant experienced high fever and was diagnosed with dengue at Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute. Admitted to the ICU, his platelet count dropped, and his eyesight worsened due to what he claimed was negligent treatment. Despite informing the medical staff, his condition deteriorated, leading to severe complications and eventual blindness. Transferred to AIIMS and other eye specialists, he remained blind. The complainant faced significant medical expenses, lost his job, and endured physical and mental suffering. Dissatisfied, he filed a complaint before the State Commission, which then ordered the hospital to pay Rs. 35,00,000 as compensation for the loss of eyesight and medical expenses.
Hospital’s Defense
The hospital argued that the patient arrived in a critical state with severe dengue symptoms like high fever, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Admitted immediately to the ICU, he was diagnosed with severe thrombocytopenia and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Despite intensive care, his vision deteriorated, prompting a referral to AIIMS for further treatment. The hospital asserted that all standard medical protocols were followed and denied any negligence or incompetence. They claimed the complaint was baseless and should be dismissed.
National Commission’s Observations
The NCDRC outlined that negligence involves a breach of duty due to an omission or action that a reasonable person would avoid, as referenced in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. In medical cases, proving negligence requires different considerations. A mere error in judgment or lack of care does not equate to negligence if the doctor adheres to an accepted medical practice, even if a better option exists. This principle has been upheld in past cases like Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh.
The State Commission previously concluded that a 12-hour delay in starting medication for the patient’s blurred vision contributed to the loss of vision. However, the NCDRC noted that this conclusion ignored CT and MRI reports and expert opinions indicating no hemorrhage but suggested optic neuritis due to dengue. The patient’s severe dengue led to brain bleeding and other complications, not an eye disease. Expert bodies like the Medical Board of Maulana Azad Medical College and the Delhi Medical Council recognized ophthalmologic complications from dengue.
Final Verdict
The NCDRC allowed the appeal and overturned the State Commission’s order. They emphasized that the injury was caused by dengue fever, not delayed medical attention.
Practical Takeaway
This judgment underscores that in medical negligence cases, adherence to accepted medical practices shields healthcare providers from liability, even if alternative treatments might exist. It reminds patients and legal practitioners that proving negligence requires demonstrating a breach of duty, not just an unfavorable outcome.
For more details, you can read or download the complete order.
