A Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed Citizens Speciality Hospital and its consultant neurologist to jointly and severally pay ₹1 crore in compensation and ₹50,000 towards legal expenses for negligent treatment of a 30-year-old Hyderabad University PhD student [Ramavadh & Anr. v Citizens Speciality Hospital & Ors].
A coram of President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and Members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy held the hospital and Dr Aparna Vijay Kumar, its consultant neurologist, liable for deficiency in treatment of Surya Pratap Bharathi, who suffered a massive stroke on August 17, 2020 and died 4 days later.
Bharathi was found unconscious at his university hostel and was taken to Citizens Speciality Hospital. The Commission found that the hospital had identified the need for a mechanical thrombectomy. However, it noted that the hospital had failed to provide the necessary intervention within the relevant therapeutic window.
The Commission held that the hospital and doctor could not avoid responsibility by citing the absence of the patient's family for consent, particularly when he was unconscious and in need of urgent treatment. It explained that where delaying treatment could cause irreversible harm, emergency treatment could be undertaken on the basis of implied or presumed consent.
"OPNo.1(the hospital) & OPNo.2 (its consulting neurologist) are found negligent and deficient in providing necessary treatment to the patient/son of the complainants. And under medical negligence jurisprudence, if prompt interventional treatment within the narrow therapeutic window could have saved the patient’s life or prevented fatal brain tissue death, the hospital is liable for the loss of that chance of life or survival/recovery, if they failed to provide the necessary treatment to the patient," ultimately held the Commission.
The Commission also considered Bharathi’s age, education and future career prospects. It took into account the financial and emotional loss suffered by his parents, who were daily wage workers and had relied on him for their future security.
"Considering the deceased’s age, educational background, future career trajectory, and the immense non-pecuniary suffering endured by the Complainants, this Commission deems it just, fair, and equitable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) towards compensation for loss of dependency, future prospects, filial consortium, and mental agony," held the Commission.
It further underscored the impact of Bharathi's death on his aged parents, particularly their loss of financial support and care in their later years.
"Undoubtedly, the untimely and preventable death of their young son has abruptly deprived the aged Complainants of their primary source of future financial dependency, security, and care in the evening of their lives. Beyond the severe pecuniary loss calculated under the principles of lost dependency and future earning prospects, the catastrophic loss of a young child due negligence and deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No.1 & 2 has inflicted profound emotional trauma, grief, and severe mental agony upon the parents-a loss of filial consortium that no monetary measure can ever fully compensate," observed the Commission.
In case of default, the ₹1 crore compensation would carry 9% annual interest until payment.
Advocate Rajasri Manche appeared for the Phd student's parents.
Advocates Ch Lakshminarayana and Lalith Jogi appeared for Citizens Speciality Hospital and its consultant neurologist.
Advocate P Vikram appeared for Continental Hospital and Advocate Suchitra for another neurologist.
[Read Judgment]