In a landmark judgement related to MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE delivered on 22nd April, 2015, in the case of Indu Sharma v. Indraprashta Apollo Hospital, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has asked Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and its gynaecologist, Sohini Verma, to pay Rs.1 crore compensation to the parents of the child who was born with 95% disability in the year 1999 due to the negligence of the said doctor at the time of delivery.
While adjudicating the matter, the NCDRC held that “The corporate hospitals and specialists, as might be expected, must perform at a higher level than other hospitals/general practitioners. They, after all, represent themselves as possessing highest standard facilities and care; also possess superior skills and additional training. The hospital charges and the doctor’s fees normally reflect this.”
Alleging “negligence” by the doctor and “substandard care during labour” at the hands of the hospital, the couple approached the Commission in the year 2002, and received justice after a long battle of 13 years. While setting the award amount of Rs. 1 crore, the NCDRC held that out of the total compensation Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, would pay Rs 80 lakh and the gynecologist would pay Rs 20 lakh to the complainant. As the hospital had filed “tampered” medical records of the mother’s treatment, hence, punitive cost of Rs 10 lakh was also imposed on the hospital, which was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, NCDRC.
The Commission also held that “The higher the level of hospital had specialized facilities and specialist doctors available and also the cost of treatment will be higher, thus the level of expectation of the patient certainly will be high….It is very disappointing that, the sky-rocketing costs in health care spurred public and private reform. Knowing full well how the corporate hospitals now function and huge amount of fee they charge, it is very well evidenced by the currency counting machine in the cashier section of each of these hospitals.”
Legal Strokes opines that this judgement has till date served as the epitome evidence of the sensitivity of the Govt. bodies towards covering a medically aggrieved person within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Indian law. While the legal purview of medical law is diverse and judgments are based on many such facts which are beyond the understanding of the common man with his limited knowledge of medicine, and despite the fact that human life cannot be evaluated monetarily, this judgement by the NCDRC is an exemplary instance of equitable delivery of justice to an aggrieved consumer.
Alleging “negligence” by the doctor and “substandard care during labour” at the hands of the hospital, the couple approached the Commission in the year 2002, and received justice after a long battle of 13 years. While setting the award amount of Rs. 1 crore, the NCDRC held that out of the total compensation Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, would pay Rs 80 lakh and the gynecologist would pay Rs 20 lakh to the complainant. As the hospital had filed “tampered” medical records of the mother’s treatment, hence, punitive cost of Rs 10 lakh was also imposed on the hospital, which was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, NCDRC.
The Commission also held that “The higher the level of hospital had specialized facilities and specialist doctors available and also the cost of treatment will be higher, thus the level of expectation of the patient certainly will be high….It is very disappointing that, the sky-rocketing costs in health care spurred public and private reform. Knowing full well how the corporate hospitals now function and huge amount of fee they charge, it is very well evidenced by the currency counting machine in the cashier section of each of these hospitals.”
Legal Strokes opines that this judgement has till date served as the epitome evidence of the sensitivity of the Govt. bodies towards covering a medically aggrieved person within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Indian law. While the legal purview of medical law is diverse and judgments are based on many such facts which are beyond the understanding of the common man with his limited knowledge of medicine, and despite the fact that human life cannot be evaluated monetarily, this judgement by the NCDRC is an exemplary instance of equitable delivery of justice to an aggrieved consumer.