Hospital’s contradictory claims cost it Rs 16 lakh: Consumer commission upholds negligence order

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld compensation of over Rs 16 lakh against a Raipur hospital, stressing contradictions in its defence — while the hospital claimed the patient was brought in dead, its doctors admitted under cross-examination to administering an injection in an attempt to revive him.

The commission also noted the hospital’s failure to provide medical records, CCTV footage, and visitor logs, which reinforced findings of negligence and upheld the district forum’s order in favour of the applicant. Hina Soni, a resident of Professor Colony, had filed a complaint against the hospital in Raipur, alleging gross medical negligence in the treatment of her husband, Himanshu Soni. Soni was admitted to the hospital from December 18 to 24, 2010 after he suffered injuries to his legs and urinary tract in a road accident in 2008.

Doctors at the hospital performed a laser surgery on his urinary tract and discharged him on December 24, 2010, declaring him fully recovered. However, on December 26, 2010, Soni suffered immense pain and was brought back to the hospital. Doctors at the hospital gave him an injection and began to examine him. The patient's condition deteriorated and he died shortly thereafter. The hospital, in its defence before the District Consumer Commission, Raipur, claimed that it had provided quality medical services and that Soni was brought to the hospital dead by his family members on December 26, 2010.

The hospital denied any medical negligence. The District Consumer Commission noted the hospital's contradictory statements. While the hospital stated in its defence that the patient was brought in dead, its doctors later admitted during cross-examination that they had administered an injection in an attempt to revive him. The commission also noted that the hospital had failed to provide CCTV footage and other documents to support its claims, which established a serious lapse in patient care.

The commission then ordered the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 15 lakh with 6% annual simple interest, Rs 1 lakh for mental anguish, and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs. Aggrieved by the order, the hospital filed an appeal with the State Commission. During the hearing, a bench of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, comprising president Justice Gautam Chourdiya and member Pramod Kumar Verma, on September 4 noted that the hospital had initially denied administering any injection to the patient. The bench also observed that the hospital had failed to provide Soni’s medical records despite repeated requests by his father, Arvindbhai Soni. This prevented the family from getting an expert medical opinion. The commission further noted that the hospital had not submitted CCTV footage and the visitor's register to support its claims. This confirmed the serious medical negligence by the hospital. Finding the doctors' actions to be a case of medical negligence and recklessness, the commission upheld the district commission's order. The hospital is now directed to pay a compensation of Rs 15 lakh with 6% simple interest from the date of the complaint (26 November 2012), Rs 1 lakh for mental anguish, and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs.