Order Date: Not Mentioned
Order Name: Lifeline Nursing Home & Polyclinic Vs. Mohd. Nasim
Case No.: R.P. No. 1171/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by AVM J. Rajendra, has held Lifeline Nursing Home accountable for lapses in treatment that led to a patient’s death. This was deemed a deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant’s mother underwent gallbladder surgery at Lifeline Nursing Home. Unfortunately, the procedure allegedly ended in her death due to medical negligence, including complications like broken teeth and anesthesia failure. Furthermore, the complainant accused the nursing home of deceit by transferring the patient to the ICU after her death and filing a false criminal case against him and his brothers. The patient’s body was even exhumed for a post-mortem examination.
The complainant also argued that the surgery was illegal under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act because the nursing home was unlicensed. Moreover, he claimed that proper consent was not obtained, and the risks were not adequately explained. Seeking compensation for treatment costs, mental agony, and litigation expenses, the complainant approached the District Forum, which dismissed his complaint. Later, the State Commission of West Bengal allowed the appeal, directing the nursing home to pay Rs. 7 lakhs in compensation and Rs. 50,000 in litigation costs. The nursing home then filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Nursing Home
Lifeline Nursing Home contended that the complainant had no cause of action. They asserted that they had followed all necessary formalities under the WBCE Rules, 2003, and obtained the requisite permissions. They clarified that the admission was based on the surgeon’s recommendation, who also directed the operation and enlisted the anesthetist. Despite comprehensive treatment efforts, the patient, who had multiple ailments, died the next day. The nursing home denied any negligence, emphasizing its compliance with medical advice and asserting that all necessary treatments were provided.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission highlighted the importance of informed consent, which requires patients or their families to understand the risks and nature of the treatment. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, it emphasized that a patient has the right to decide on treatment, and a doctor cannot proceed without consent unless it’s a life-saving emergency.
In this case, while the complainant claimed that informed consent was not obtained, the nursing home argued that detailed information was provided in Bengali and acknowledged by signatures. The Commission found no deficiency in service regarding consent.
Regarding the duty of care, the Supreme Court in Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole established that doctors must provide care with reasonable skill, knowledge, and diligence. Failure to do so constitutes medical negligence. The investigation by the West Bengal Medical Council found the nursing home and doctors liable for lapses in treatment. Despite efforts to conceal the facts, the Commission upheld the State Commission’s findings of negligence but modified the suspension of the anesthetist’s registration.
The National Commission upheld the State Commission’s order and dismissed the revision petition.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the critical importance of informed consent and adherence to medical standards. Patients and their families must be fully informed about treatment risks, and medical professionals must exercise due care and diligence to avoid lapses that could lead to severe consequences.
