.jpg)
Medical Negligence and Consumer Right
Ashi Mangal,
Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior
Abstract
The case Alka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. Base Hospital Delhi Cantt. and Ors. revolves around a claim of medical negligence during pregnancy, resulting in a child born with severe birth defects. The complainant alleged that doctors at Base Hospital (OP-1) and Army Hospital (OP-2) failed to diagnose serious fatal anomalies such as Spina Bifida, Meningomyelocele, and Hydrocephalus during routine ultrasounds in the second trimester, despite repeated scans at critical gestational stages. The complainant sought compensation for the lifelong medical care endured by the child and family. The complainant was initially granted compensation by the District Consumer Forum, but this decision was reserved by the State Commission, which instructed the hospital to offer the child lifelong free medical treatment instead. After further appealing to the national Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the court sided with the complainants. The doctors did not show reasonable care and skill during ultrasound examinations, resulting in them failing to detect obvious signs of fatal anomalies, according to the NCDRC. The commission restored the payment and required Rs. Five hundred thousand, highlighting the carelessness and long-lasting consequences on the family.
1. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case No. | : | Revision Petition No. 2158 of 2010 |
Jurisdiction | : | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi |
Case Decided On | : | July 2, 2015 |
Judges | : | Justice J.M. Malik (Presiding Member), Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member |
Legal Provisions Involved | : | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – 2(1)(o), ; Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 |
Case Summary Prepared By | : |
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
Mrs. Alka Srivastava, the person making the complaint, looked for medical help for her pregnancy at base Hospital in Delhi Cantt. (Respondent No.1) and Army Hospital (R&R) in Delhi (Respondent No.2). In the beginning of her pregnancy, she had vaginal bleeding and was taken to Respondent No.1 for treatment including injections and instructions for total bed rest. Several ultrasounds were done at hospitals of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, Yet the doctors, such as Dr. Kanika and Lt. Col. K. Kapur, continuously reassured her that there were no fatal abnormalities.
On September 25, 2006, the complainant was referred back and forth between hospital due to ongoing complication, with ultrasound reports consistently showing no clear congenital anomalies in the fetus. Even after multiple check-ups and reassurances from medical professional about the healthy development of the fetus, the individual was still uneasy because of statement in a ultrasound report indicating, ‘’No visible birth defect, Sono-graphically detectable at this point, in the fetal organ system”. When the complainant asked for more information, Lt. Col. Sudhir Saxena told her not to worry and praised her beforehand.
During a trip to Singhal Hospital on March 5, 2007, the complainant’s ultrasound showed significant fetal abnormalities such as Spina Bifida, Meningomyelocele, and Hydrocephalus. The respondent hospital confirmed these finding with follow-up ultrasounds, and then referred the complainant for specialized care. On march 27, 2007, the accuser delivered a baby girl who had severe congenital abnormalities such as lumber meningomyelocele and hydrocephalus. The accuser claimed that Respondents No.1 and 2 were negligent in their diagnosis and did not identify the fatal anomalies during the second trimester, despite her previous miscarriage and regular check-ups. She asserted that the doctors’ negligence results in the birth of a severely disabled child, whose condition could have been identified sooner for medical treatment and termination of the pregnancy within the legal limits. She claimed that hospital and their physician did not fulfil their duty of care and requested compensation for the lasting consequence of their negligence.
On the flip side, the participants argued that the abnormalities were not noticeable in the initial phases of gestation and that the birth defects were only recognized in the final three months, a well-known medial difficulty. They also claimed that the person making the complainant, being a relative of someone in the military, was given complimentary healthcare and was not protected by the consumer protection Act.
The person making the complaint wanted to hold respondent No. 1 and 2 equally responsible for the negligence that resulted in physical and emotional harm to her and her child.
3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether the provision of medical services by government hospitals under employment benefits fall under the definition of “service” ass per the Consumer Protection Act?
II. Whether the doctor at Base Hospital (Respondent No.1) and Army Hospital, R&R (Respondent No. 2) were negligent in their duties?
III. Whether the doctors are liable for not informing the patient about the fatal abnormalities before delivery?
4. Arguments of the Parties
Argument by Appellant:
· Negligence in Conducting ultrasounds: The doctors at Respondent No.1 and 2 failed to diagnose severe fatal anomalies (Spina Bifida, Meningomyelocele, Hydrocephalus) during routine ultrasound between 12-21 weeks which were only detected at 35 weeks. These anomalies should have been diagnosed earlier, allowing for medical intervention or termination under the medical termination of pregnancy Act, 1971.
· Failure to Provide Accurate Information: A November 21, 2006 ultrasound report caused concern, but when the appellant sought clarification, the doctor reassured her without explaining the risks. This lack of information deprived her of making informed decisions.
· Beach of duty of care: given her history of miscarriage and pregnancy complications, the appellant argued that the doctors failed to exercise the necessary care expected, particularly in monitoring her high-risk pregnancy.
· Emotional and financial Burden: the birth of child with serve disability led to emotional distress and financial burden. The appellant argued that the respondents’ negligence cause this and sought enhanced compensation.
· Consumer Protection Act Applicability: The appeallant argued that she was a “consumer” under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986, as the medical services were part of her husband’s employment benefits, making the respondents liable for deficiency inservice.
Argument by Respondent:
· Absence of Medical Negligence: thi participants argued that several ultrasound were performed during the sound trimester, yet the fetal defects (Spina Bifida, Meningomyelocele, Hydrocephalus) were not detectable during that time and only became apparent in the third trimester.
· Adherence to medical criteria: they asserted that they followed standard medical protocols, explaining that abnormalities may not always be detected in second-trimester ultrasound and backing up their claims with medical literature showing these conditions can arise later in pregnancy.
· Excluded from being considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act: The individuals contended that the person making the complaint, who is a beneficiary of free medical services provided to armed forces members, does not meet the definition of a "consumer" as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore, cannot demand compensation for any alleged lack of service quality.
· Detecting anomalies in a timely manner: They claimed that the abnormalities were identified right when they became apparent in the third trimester, resulting in prompt referrals for proper treatment, showing no lag in medical attention.
5. Legal Aspect involved in the case
Legal Aspect | Details |
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 | If the individual lodging a complaint can be considered a “consumer” even if they are receiving complementary medical services as a dependent of a currently serving armed forces member. |
Medical Negligence | Assesses whether physicians did not demonstrate reasonable care and expertise in identifying fatal abnormalities, which can be considered medical negligence |
Duty of Care | Assesses if doctor failed in their duty by not identifying birth defects in routine ultrasounds, particularly considering the patients’ medical background |
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 | To look into whether the late detection of fatal abnormalities prevented the complainant rom accessing legal abortion within the specified timeframe. |
Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 | To evaluate if the doctors’ behaviour constituted negligence under tort law, allowing the plaintiff to seek compensation for emotional and financial suffering. |
Tort Law (Negligence) | If the doctor’s behaviour constituted negligence under the tort law, allowing the plaintiff to seek damages for emotional and financial suffering. |
6. Judgment in brief
Issue I: According to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was decided by the Commission that giving medical services by government hospitals, even if they are provided free as part of job perks, is considered as a type of "service". The V.P. Shantha Case verdict highlighted that medical services provided to employees and their family members are covered by consumer rights, regardless of whether payment is made. As a result, the person filing the complaint, being the spouse or family member of someone in the military, was considered a "consumer" and had the right to request compensation for any issues with the service provided.
Issue II: The Commission determined that medical professionals did not meet the expected standard of care, leading to serious consequences for the complainant and her child because they failed to identify the anomalies. This was a violation of the patient's owed duty of care. The Commission concluded that the doctors at Base Hospital (Respondent No. 1) and Army Hospital, R&R (Respondent No. 2) were negligent in their responsibilities. Even after performing several ultrasounds in the second trimester, they were unable to identify important fetal abnormalities that should have been noticeable at that point.
Issue III: The Commission held the doctors responsible for not properly informing the complainant about the foetal abnormalities before delivery. The judgment emphasised the importance of obtaining informed consent, which requires patients to be informed of all relevant medical information about their health and potential risks. Not informing the complainant about the ultrasound results and their consequences prevented her from making well-informed choices about her pregnancy, resulting in emotional and psychological suffering. The respondents were held guilty for this failure in communication, which confirmed their negligence.
7. Commentary
· The decision confirm that healthcare services offered by public hospitals can be considered a “service” according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if they are provided free of charge as part of employee benefit. This legal precedent is important, as it guarantees the similar rights and protections to individual seeking medical treatment in government facilities as consumer form various industries, it holds that the standard of care should not be altered based on the payment source, thereby promoting accountability in public healthcare systems. Furthermore, an essential notion of this situation is to identify the negligence of the medical professional who were part of it.
· The NDRC’s conclusion for doctors not identifying critical fatal issues in multiple ultrasounds highlights a major concern about the quality of care in public healthcare facilities. The submission document points out that the respondent relied heavily on medical literature to justify their actions, stating that some conditions may not be readily detectable during the second trimester. Nevertheless, it prompts inquire about the adequacy of education and procedures for prenatal testing. High expectation should be place on healthcare providers, especially in specialized areas such as obstetrics and gynaecology.
· The decision emphasises that if any errors in diagnostic procedures, especially when they have a significant impact on the health of mothers and babies, will not be tolerated. It requires a review of the education and material provided to healthcare workers in public hospitals to ensure that they keep-up with changes. Also, the doctor’s failure to inform the complainant about the foetal anomalies before delivery is a key aspect of this case. Informed consent is not only a legal requirement, but also a fundamental aspect of ethical medical care, which guarantees that patients are entitled to understand the risks, benefits and alternative involved in their medical treatment.
· The commission finds that the responsibility in this area highlights how important clear communication is in promoting patient freedom and trust in healthcare professionals. Therefore, this decision can serve as a catalyst for reforms aimed enhancing the training of healthcare professionals, improving clinical protocols, and ensuring that patients receive comprehensive information about their health.
· It also highlights the need for public hospitals to implements effective communication strategies that promote informed consent and protect patient rights. In conclusion, the judgment of Alka Srivastava v Base Hospital is an important reminder of the importance of integrating consumer rights into the healthcare sector, the need for a high standard of medical care, and the ethical obligation of healthcare sector, the need for a high standard of medical care, and the ethical obligation of healthcare providers to ensure informed consent.
The Commission’s findings are significant, advocating for a healthcare system that is not only responsive to the needs of patients but also accountable for the quality of care provided. This case ultimately class for a holistic approach to healthcare, where patient welfare is on priority, and medical professionals are empowered to deliver the highest standards of care.
8. Important cases referred
· V.P. Shantha vs. R. Tiwari, 1996 AIR 550
· Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs. Timbak Bapu Godbole & Anr., AIR 1969 SCR (1) 206
· Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 1
· Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
Comments