Nand Kishore Prasad v. Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Ors.
Background
A 15-year-old boy with abdominal pain, fever, and eye haemorrhage was admitted to a hospital and operated on to remove roundworms from his intestine, even though his blood platelet count was dangerously low (35,000 per cu.mm against a normal range of 1.5 to 4 lakh). He continued bleeding after surgery, was shifted to another hospital, and died a few days later. His father filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence by the operating surgeon and hospital.
Decision Breakdown
The State Consumer Commission found the surgeon negligent for operating despite the critically low platelet count and awarded compensation against both the hospital and the surgeon, but the National Commission absolved the surgeon of personal liability, calling him only "a wee bit negligent." The Supreme Court disagreed, holding there was no evidence that the surgery was the only life-saving option available at the time, so operating on a patient with such a low platelet count was an unreasonable decision, not a mere bona fide clinical judgment call, and the finding of negligence against the surgeon could not be erased. On compensation, the Court held that since the hospital's liability for the surgeon's conduct was vicarious (the surgeon was employed there), the full enhanced amount of Rs. 6,00,000 should be paid by the hospital, and partly allowed the appeal on that basis.
Lesson Learnt
A doctor's treatment choice is given latitude for genuine differences of medical opinion, but that protection fails when there is no evidence that a risky procedure was truly the only option, and a hospital remains financially accountable for its employed doctor's negligence even where a lower forum tries to let the individual doctor off.