Delhi Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Alleging Medical Negligence Against Private Hospital

Time of India

a day ago

New Delhi: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently dismissed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against a private hospital.
The bench, comprising president Justice Sangita Dhingra and member Pinki, observed last month that the appellant merely made "vague allegations" which did not disclose any detail regarding his grievance against the treatment provided.
"Furthermore, the appellant has not placed on record any cogent material or expert evidence to show negligence on the part of the respondents. Even otherwise, there is nothing in favour of the appellant," said the commission.
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
The patient/complainant, Lal Bahadur Pandey, claimed that he was administered high-potency medicines daily at the hospital, leading to his deteriorating health.
The history of the case goes back to 2017 when the patient was suffering from pain in his right arm as well as the right side of his neck, and in an emergency, he was admitted to a Delhi-based hospital, Jeevan Jyoti Clinic and Hospital, in Dilshad Garden.
The complainant alleged that the medical superintendent of the hospital, along with his son, a doctor, gave him several high-potency medicines daily, and the complainant allegedly became "unable to take even a loaf of bread in the name of eating and drinking".
Despite spending more than Rs 1.1 lakh for the treatment, the complainant began suffering from deterioration of his health on account of several other defects in his organs.
He alleged that when the hospital noticed that the complainant was about to die, the patient was discharged and referred to Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital.
When the second hospital refused to provide treatment, he was taken to GTB Hospital on the same day, Feb 16, 2017, and remained admitted until Feb 22, 2017.
Pandey approached the district consumer commission and alleged that the treating hospital intentionally kept on misusing the sanctity and pious medical profession to extort money.
However, the district commission dismissed the complaint, noting that the patient did not submit any evidence to show that the medical tests, which were not required, were also conducted by the hospital, and no evidence showed that the treatment given by the doctors was not proper. Following this, he challenged the order before the state consumer court.