Abstract

In a case before NCDRC claim of more than One Crore was rejected on the issue of bald allegations, unreasonable claim and clarified many issues related to medical negligence against government hospitals.

NCDRC observed that bald and irrational allegations, like, for example, rubber stamp of hospital not being put, etc. etc., which form a prominent and substantial part of the Complaint, require no exhaustive critique. [Para 13] For Unethical Issues complaint before SMC/MCI can be made.

On the merit of case for alleged Medical Negligence, NCDRC observed that delay or error in examination, investigation, diagnosis, treatment and referral, as may show negligence / deficiency, is not visible in the entire medical record furnished with the Complaint. [Para 14]

NCDRC specifically noted that all these 5 hospitals are government hospitals, which have limited wherewithal and capacities, and which cater to large volumes of patients. [Para 15]

On the issue of referral of patient to higher centre NCDRC observed that in our view, there was nothing wrong in referring the patient to O.P. No. 2 hospital. It was the decision of the doctors, in their professional wisdom, based on the availability of facilities & capabilities and the condition of the patient.

A perusal of the prayer clause in the Complaint shows that the compensation asked for under the various heads is not adequately and rationally explained. On the face of it itself, it is evident that lumpsum compensation without explaining the rationale therefore has been asked for under the various heads, and the various heads have been conjoined together to bring the Complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

NCDRC emphasized that there is a purpose for stipulating pecuniary jurisdiction for the various Consumer Protection Fora under the Section 11(1), the Section 17(1)(a)(i) and the Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986, one being that the higher Fora are not unnecessarily burdened, another being that the due examination at the different levels is duly undertaken and the higher Fora has the benefit of a reasoned order of a lower Forum in making its scrutiny when hearing appeal or revision.  However NCDRC not considered the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction as a ground for dismissing the Complaint (which relates to alleged medical negligence / deficiency that resulted in the death of the patient).

On the issue of medical negligence NCDRC concluded that we find the entire treatment record at various hospitals to clearly show that the patient, when under the care of doctors from 05.04.2017 till the death i.e. on 02.05.2017, was treated as per standard protocol in the case of CHD and LVF with the available facilities / wherewithal available with the different hospitals. We do not note any negligence / deficiency. [Para 8]