10 yrs after death, newborn’s parents granted relief for medical negligence

In March 2004, N K Srivastava referred to an advertisement and took his pregnant wife to Sarvodaya Hospital and Trauma Centre at Vaishali for her delivery. It was after a premature baby was born to the couple that the hospital confessed that it did not have a nursery ICU and referred the Srivastavas to another hospital.

The baby was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital but was again denied admission to the nursery ICU. Admitted to the general ward, the baby caught an infection and died within a month. Ten years later, the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission asked the Vaishali hospital to pay the couple Rs 2.2 lakh compensation.

The State consumer forum held that both the hospitals were guilty of medical negligence. "Out of greed, they admitted the complainant's wife to deliver a premature baby — seven-and-half months old, weighing 1.28 kg with undeveloped lungs — and then referred the baby to another hospital with nursery facility. thus depriving the newborn baby of immediate necessary facilities. This, in our considered view, amounts to gross medical negligence," a two-member panel of the Commission observed on December 10.

The Commission also found Safdarjung Hospital to be guilty of denying the baby access to the nursery.

The counsel representing Safdarjung Hospital had argued that it was "the policy of the hospital" to not admit "outside babies" to their nursery for fear of spreading infection to other babies. The Commission rejected this contention observing: "Badly needed facility was denied on the basis of arbitrary, arrogant and discriminatory policy of the Hospital, which is totally unacceptable to us. We are, therefore, convinced that both hospitals were guilty of gross medical negligence."

However, only Sarvodaya Hospital was asked to pay the compensation. No penalty was imposed on Safdarjung Hospital based on a 1995 Supreme Court verdict, which stated that in cases where treatment is free, the service would not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

This article is courtesy from the Indian Express.