Hospital liable to compensate for negligence even if treatment free – ET HealthWorld

The hospital had claimed that the patient could not be considered a consumer since he was treated free of cost. The commission dismissed the hospital’s argument, stating that not all patients were being treated for free at the hospital and therefore the patient in question can be considered a consumer.

According to case details, in December 2008, Pravinbhai Sonara from Dholka underwent an operation for appendicitis in the hospital which is now closed.

After surgery, he continued to experience pain and was treated for the same for the next few months as well. However, it was not until he consulted another doctor and underwent another surgery at a different hospital in August 2009 that he found out the cause for his trouble — a mop left inside his large intestine.

Sonara filed a complaint with Ahmedabad District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and demanded Rs 15 lakh as compensation. His plaint was dismissed on the grounds that he cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. This, because he was treated free of cost by the hospital which had a provision to treat the needy without charging them since the hospital was attached with a medical college.

The patient then approached the state commission where the hospital denied the allegation that its doctors had forgotten the mop inside Sonara’s body.

The hospital further argued that Sonara’s post-operative complication was because of a large infected appendix and adhesion of intestine etc. and it cannot be presumed that the pain in his abdomen was due to the so-called piece of cloth left in his large intestine. The state consumer commission refused to accept the argument that the patient cannot be considered a consumer according to the Trust Deed, for he was treated for free. It said that since the hospital was not treating every patient without charge and therefore the patient falls under the definition of consumer.

The commission concluded that it was a case of gross medical negligence on part of the doctor and there is direct or vicarious liability on the hospital for the negligent act of its employees. Therefore, it ordered, Sonara was entitled to compensation for expenses he had incurred for the second operation to remove the mop from abdomen, and for the mental and physical anguish he suffered besides loss of income during the treatment.