Mumbai News: Consumer Commission Orders Wockhardt Hospitals To Pay ₹18 Lakh For Medical Negligence After Patient’s Death Due To ICU Delay In 2010

Mumbai: The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in its recent orders have held Wockhardt Hospitals, Nashik, guilty of deficient service towards its consumer, who died of a cardiac arrest in 2010, due to the hospital’s negligent behaviour.

The commission has thus directed hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 18 lakhs to the complainant along with 10 percent interest on the amount from 2010.

Negligent delay in ICU admission proved fatal

A case was filed by Vijay Naidu, a resident of Nashik, who had admitted his young son Ravindra Naidu in the hospital in on April 15, 2010 between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM, for nose bleeding. Vijay, the complainant, alleged gross medical negligence and deficiency in service, leading to his son's untimely death. The son was a young boy.

According to him, on April 16, 2010, around 3:00 AM, the patient fell while going to the bathroom and complained of chest pain and uneasiness. His condition gradually worsened, but the doctors allegedly did not provide proper immediate treatment, and he was not admitted to the ICU until 7:00 AM.

The appellant also contended that from 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM on April 16, 2010, no information about the patient's condition was provided to relatives, nor was the appellant allowed to meet the patient.

The appellant believed his son died around 8:30 AM on April 16, 2010, but treatment was unnecessarily continued until 12:30 PM to create evidence of efforts to save his life. The patient was declared dead around 8:50 PM on April 16, 2010.

The complainant further alleged that despite the patient's critical condition warranting ICU admission, the hospital did not insist on it. The hospital, however, claimed the father refused ICU admission but failed to provide documentary proof.

Hospital denies claims, blames patient’s medical history

Wockhardt Hospitals and its doctors vehemently denied any negligence, stating that all protocols were followed. They attributed the death to the patient's long-standing medical conditions and his unilateral decision to stop prescribed antihypertensive medication 8-10 days prior to admission, which they argued led to accelerated hypertension and a fatal heart attack.

The hospital stated that the patient had a complex medical history, including being a chronic smoker, occasional alcohol user, diagnosed with hypertension, suffering from dyslipidemia, and leading a sedentary lifestyle under stress.

Upon admission on April 15, 2010, the patient had high blood pressure, which quickly rose, and an ICU admission was advised but refused by the patient and relatives, as per the hospital's ICU register.

The hospital claimed that extensive tests and treatments were administered, including antihypertensive medication, blood thinners, and nasal packing. When the patient's condition worsened on April 16, 2010, he was shifted to the ICU at 6:15 AM, and despite intensive resuscitative measures, he was declared dead at 12:50 PM.

All experts corroborated the severity of the patient's pre-existing conditions and emphasized that stopping antihypertensive medication was a critical mistake. They consistently concluded that the death was due to cardiovascular complications from accelerated hypertension, aggravated by the patient's discontinuation of Betaloc, and the treatment at Wockhardt Hospital was timely, appropriate, and within the standard of care.

After Vijay’s case was rejected by the district consumer commission, he in 2011, had filed an appeal against the order before the State consumer Commission, who in its orders passed on July 17, have ruled in favour of Vijay and held the hospital guilty.

District forum’s order overturned after 14-year legal battle

The commission presided by the president ,Justice S.P. Tavade and member Vijay C. Premchandani, in their order held, that the complainant succeeded in proving that Wockhardt Hospitals failed to shift the deceased patient timely to the ICU. The patient's right to receive competent and timely care was violated.

The order of the District Forum dated June 30, 2011, was set aside and modified, with the consumer complaint allowed against Wockhardt Hospitals.