Every death of patient cannot, on the face of it, be medical negligence: NCDRC

New Delhi: The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has said every death of a patient cannot, on the face of it, be considered to be medical negligence unless there is material on record, setting aside the order of the Rajasthan state commission to award Rs 44 lakh compensation to the deceased's kin. A bench of Presiding Member S M Kantikar was hearing the appeals of two hospitals in Jaipur filed against the order of the state consumer commission directing them to pay the compensation to the deceased patient's wife.

The state commission held them responsible for negligence, carelessness and not providing due care and skill to the deceased patient.

"...Every death of a patient cannot, on the face of it, be considered as death due to medical negligence, unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect," the presiding member said.

Referring to a 2005 judgment of the Supreme Court, which laid down the test for establishing a case of medical negligence, he said, "it is clear that in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent."

"I note that apart from the allegations, the complainant failed to bring on record the appropriate medical evidence to prove medical negligence...the conclusion reached by the state commission appears to be assumptive without the scientific analysis and lack of supportive medical evidence," the presiding member said.

He further said that the finding of the state commission holding both hospitals guilty of medical negligence was "not sustainable in law" and its "whole approach" was "erroneous".

"...Both the present appeals are allowed. The order passed by the state commission is set aside," Presiding Member Kantikar said.

The NCDRC said that the treating doctor at the first hospital had undertaken the correct line of treatment, while the second hospital had provided a reasonable standard of care.

It also rejected the finding of the state commission about delayed treatment and angiography being performed in a wrong manner and said it was a "hypothetical and presumptive finding".

Noting the details of treatment, the national consumer commission said that there was no deficiency or failure in the duty of care, nor there were any lapses during treatment.

"...The compensation of Rs 44 lakh awarded by the state commission appears to be on sympathetic consideration. It was not clear about the basis or method of computation adopted to arrive at such a huge award," the NCDRC said.