Case at a Glance
An ex-serviceman alleged that his 78-year-old mother, who had COPD, was negligently treated by an oncologist at a Barasat hospital in December 2014, then refused admission elsewhere and died during dialysis at another facility. He claimed ₹28 lakh for her death and ₹20 lakh for harassment and mental agony. Eleven years after the complaint was filed, the West Bengal State Commission dismissed it. It held that the later hospitals and their doctors had not been made parties, so responsibility could not be fixed, and that given the emergency and the family’s written refusal to shift her to a higher centre, deficiency in service was not proved.
The complainant’s mother, aged 78 and suffering from COPD, was treated at Eco Hospital and Diagnostics, Barasat from 2 December 2014 to 14 December 2014, including in the ICCU, under the care of an oncologist, and was discharged on 14 December. On 15 December she was refused admission at Eco Hospital and at the Base Hospital, Barrackpore, and was then taken to a non-empanelled facility in Rahara. The complainant alleged that she underwent dialysis there without any prescription and died during dialysis. On 14 October 2015 he filed a complaint against the hospital, the oncologist, a nephrologist and two army medical officers, seeking ₹28,00,000 for the death and ₹20,00,000 for harassment and mental agony.
The hospital and the oncologist said the patient arrived critically ill, the family was repeatedly advised to move her to a higher centre, and they refused in writing. The nephrologist said he was never attached to the hospital and never saw the patient. The army medical officers said the patient had multiple illnesses needing tertiary care and was referred onward, and that one of them had only an administrative role. An expert medical board from SSKM Hospital found no definite act of negligence, though it raised concerns about discharge documentation and suggested an internal medicine consultant should have been in charge.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was there deficiency in service by the hospital and doctors, and can liability be fixed when the hospitals that treated the patient later were not made parties?
Missing Parties, an Emergency and the Family’s Refusal
The Commission held that the complainant was a consumer and raised a triable issue, but that the Base Hospital, the Rahara facility and their doctors had not been impleaded. “In absence of them it is not legally and logically possible to fix up the responsibility,” it said. There was no evidence of the nephrologist’s involvement, so the complaint lacked a cause of action against him, and no deficiency was shown against the officer whose role was administrative.
On the main allegation, the Commission accepted that the hospital had qualified doctors but lacked the infrastructure for such a critical patient, and that the oncologist’s lack of medicine expertise was “the main point of the complainant’s case.” Applying Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 02 SC CK 0078 and the Bolam test, together with Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 02 SC CK 0160, it held that negligence is not presumed from a bad outcome, and that the emergency and the family’s refusal to transfer the patient were decisive. It observed that “the doctors are not God. They are not supposed to do miracle,” and that doctors should not be deterred from treating critical patients, while noting that the consumer’s interest remains a paramount consideration.
What the Court Actually Held
- The complainant was a consumer and the complaint raised a triable issue, but the failure to implead the later hospitals and their doctors meant responsibility for the death could not be fixed.
- No cause of action was shown against the nephrologist, and no deficiency against the officer with only an administrative role.
- Given the emergency and the family’s written refusal to shift the patient to a higher centre, deficiency in service by the hospital and the treating doctor was not established.
- The complaint was dismissed on contest without costs; no compensation was awarded.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how important it is in medical negligence complaints to join every hospital and doctor involved in the patient’s care, particularly when treatment moved between facilities.
- A documented refusal by the family to move a patient to a higher centre can weigh heavily against a negligence claim.
- It applies the settled principle that a bad outcome alone does not prove negligence, even where an expert board notes shortcomings.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Patients
- If a patient is treated at several hospitals, consider making each of them a party to the complaint.
- Think carefully before refusing a doctor’s advice to shift a critical patient; any refusal is usually recorded in writing.
- Obtain and preserve all prescriptions, discharge summaries and dialysis records.
For Counsel
- Non-joinder of necessary parties can defeat a medical negligence complaint on its own.
- Rely on Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq and the Bolam test on the standard of care; expert evidence is central.
- An expert board’s criticism of documentation is not the same as a finding of negligence causing death.
Key Takeaways
- The 78-year-old patient was critically ill, and her family refused in writing to move her to a higher centre.
- The later hospitals and doctors were not impleaded, so responsibility could not be fixed.
- The expert board found no definite act of negligence.
- The ₹48 lakh complaint was dismissed without costs after 11 years.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the medical negligence complaint dismissed?
The State Commission held that the hospitals and doctors who treated the patient after her discharge were not made parties, so responsibility could not be fixed, and that given the emergency and the family’s refusal to transfer her, deficiency in service was not proved.
Did the expert medical board find negligence?
The SSKM Hospital board found no definite act of negligence, though it raised concerns about discharge documentation and suggested that an internal medicine consultant should have been in charge.
Why did the case take 11 years?
The complaint was filed on 14 October 2015 and decided on 29 October 2026. The Commission attributed the delay to COVID-19, bench vacancies and workload.
Conclusion
The Commission recognised the family’s grief and the concerns raised about who treated the patient, but held that the complaint could not succeed without the later treating hospitals before it and in the face of the family’s refusal to transfer a critically ill patient.
Practical takeaway: In a medical negligence complaint, join every hospital and doctor involved in the patient’s treatment and support the case with expert evidence; a poor outcome alone will not establish negligence.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com