The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a week ago, dismissed a complaint by a patient who had claimed that he faced “permanent disability” due to negligence by a private hospital in Delhi.
“Every complication suffered by a patient, cannot on the face of it, be considered to be medical negligence,” a bench of president Justice Sangita Dhingra and judicial member Pinki said in an order dated September 4.
Sidharth Jain, a resident of Indraprastha Extension, had alleged negligence against Max Super Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, seeking damages of Rs 48.2 lakh. He had met with a road accident in March 2016 and suffered knee injuries. After being admitted to the hospital, he was allegedly made to wait on a stretcher despite profusely bleeding, as per his plea. No first aid was given to him either, he claimed.
In his submissions, he had further alleged that he was allocated a bed in the emergency room only after multiple requests and that due to neglect of “basic emergency protocols”, he suffered a permanent disability which “destroyed his career, finances, and social life”.
The consumer commission, however, rejected his claims and sided with the hospital.
“It is clear from the Trauma Evaluation Sheet that the Complainant/patient’s medical condition was assessed by a team of doctors in Emergency Department, his treatment was started, IV painkiller, IV Antibiotics were given and a clean sterile dressing was done. A further perusal of the Clinical Progress Report shows that Orthopaedics team had visited and checked the condition of the Complainant/patient at around 04:00 A.M,” it said.
“Thereafter, the record reflects, that the Complainant refused from further hospitalization and did not cooperate for any further investigation and treatment at the Opposite Party-Hospital and requested for LAMA (leave against medical advice) from the Opposite Party-Hospital. The Discharge Sheet clearly reflects that the Complainant was duly explained the risks and consequences of taking leave against medical advice, however, despite explaining the aforesaid risks, the Complainant insisted on discharge against medical advice,” it added.
The commission further stated that Jain’s submissions were vague and “no cogent evidence had been placed on record” to support his claims of negligence.