Posted By :  Admin1

A hospital in Uttar Pradesh and its treating doctor have finally been cleared of medical negligence charges after a long legal battle spanning 25 years. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found that there was no medical negligence in the treatment of a patient who died after surgery. 

The original complaint dated back to the year 2000, when a patient who had suffered cut injuries to his thigh and face was treated at a government hospital and then referred to the private hospital in question. The patient reportedly lost a significant amount of blood during the referral delay and collapsed after surgery, according to the complainant. The state consumer forum had earlier held the hospital and doctor liable because the hospital failed to present full treatment records. 

On appeal, the NCDRC reviewed the hospital’s documents and found that the hospital staff, including the surgeon and anaesthetist, had attended to the patient and revived him from cardiac arrest during the post-operative period. It determined that the absence of a cardiologist did not amount to negligence under the circumstances. Because the state commission’s finding was based on the hospital’s initial failure to file records, rather than a detailed assessment of whether proper medical care was given, the NCDRC set aside the finding of negligence. 

However, recognising the delay and the hospital’s failure to contest the claim initially, the NCDRC modified the compensation order. The initial award of ₹12,92,035 plus 9 % interest was set aside. Instead, the NCDRC ordered that the complainant (the deceased’s mother) be paid a lump sum of ₹5,00,000 in addition to whatever amount had already been deposited with the Commission. The remainder of the deposited amount, with interest, must be released to the complainant within 15 days, and the additional ₹5 lakh paid within one month. 

The decision signifies the importance of proper process and evidence in medical negligence claims. The Commission emphasised that negligence cannot simply be presumed because records were not initially filed; rather, the patient’s care must be assessed against established legal standards of due care, including post-operative management. For medical professionals and hospitals, the case underlines the need to maintain clear documentation, respond to complaints promptly and engage legal representation when required. For patients and families, it highlights the long, often difficult path of consumer redressal in medical cases.