NCDRC Orders Fortis Hospital and Doctor to Compensate Rs 65 Lakh for Negligence and Unwarranted Surgery

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ordered Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in Delhi, along with the head of its cardiac department, to pay Rs 65 lakh as compensation to the family of a 62-year-old man who was left partially paralysed following an elective angioplasty.
In an order dated August 7, Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Technical Member Bharat Kumar Pandya upheld the claims made by the patient's family, asserting that the angioplasty (a procedure to open blocked arteries or veins) was conducted without necessity.
"It has been established that the cardiac doctor (OP-2) disregarded the patient's lung condition and proceeded with the angioplasty, even though the patient had co-morbidities and the procedure was elective, not mandatory, at that time. The responsibility cannot be dismissed by arguing that the patient and his daughter, both doctors, provided informed consent while aware of the risks and benefits," the order stated.
The commission found that due to medical negligence, the patient suffered permanent brain damage and fell into a coma. After emerging from the coma, he remained paralysed entirely on his left side, lost his ability to speak, hear, or comprehend, and was left in a vegetative state, according to the NCDRC.
The NCDRC held the hospital and the cardiac specialist, Dr. Ashok Seth, jointly and severally liable for the patient's condition and ordered them to pay Rs 65 lakh in compensation.
The ruling was made based on a complaint submitted by the patient's wife in 2012, who accused Dr. Ashok Seth and his team of conducting an unnecessary angioplasty and committing gross negligence during the procedure.
The hospital countered by stating that the patient and his daughter, both doctors, were fully aware of the risks, benefits, and consequences of angioplasty. They argued that the patient and his daughter not only provided informed consent but also insisted that the angioplasty be performed on the same day as their consultation with the doctor. The hospital denied all allegations of medical negligence.
Upon reviewing the case records and submissions, the NCDRC ruled in favour of the complainant.
The compensation amount was calculated after considering the patient's pre-crisis monthly income, hospital and travel expenses, nursing care costs, loss of consortium for the patient's family, pain and suffering, and litigation costs.