A 27-year-old man fell from a height, sustaining severe head injuries. He was rushed to the hospital at about 5:30PM.

For some unknown reasons, despite neurosurgeon’s advice to perform USG and to put the patient on ventilator, the casualty doctor did not take any action. He informed patient’s family that it was a case of minor head injury.

Eventually the USG was performed at 11 PM, but the findings were not shared with the family. To their shock, they were informed about patient’s death next morning at 5:30 AM. 

The hospital was sued. It was alleged that neither consent was taken for any procedure, nor any information was given about patient’s condition. Despite neurosurgeon’s advice, the patient was not put on ventilator immediately. Even the case papers were not given, further alleged patient’s family.

The hospital simply stated that a multi-disciplinary team of doctors attended the patient as per protocols; even the Chief Administrative Officer enquired about patient’s condition.

Obviously, the National Consumer Commission was not impressed by this over-simplified defence. The top Consumer Court perused expert medical committee’s report, which had observed the following:

1. Hospital admission record papers mentioned doctor's observations timed at 9.15 PM but in absence of the admission record slip no comments could be made. There Is no record to document the fact If patient was managed in the casualty department before formal admission, and what first aid treatment if any, was given to him
2. Regarding the Issue of putting the patient on ventilator, although available records documented that the neurosurgeons have instructed that the patent should be put on ventilator, however, as per available records he was not put on ventilator till 10:30 PM. However, in absence of complete hospital records no comments can be made on whether he was put on ventilator and after how much time after admission
3. In view of non-availability of all brain imaging films no conclusion may be drawn on this point. Whether the patient should have been operated or treated by conservative therapy cannot be commented from provided hospital records. 

Observing that there were glaring lapses in preparing and maintaining medical records, the hospital was held negligent and ordered to pay a handsome compensation.

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 27th January, 2023.