Consumer forum orders Star Hospitals to pay ₹15 lakh compensation to the complainant.
A consumer disputes forum has held a private hospital guilty of deficiency in service in the treatment of a critically ill patient, citing serious lapses in monitoring blood transfusions and poor clinical documentation, and directed it to pay compensation of ₹15 lakh to the complainant.
Allowing the complaint, the forum also ordered the hospital to refund ₹2.28 lakh collected towards treatment, with 9% annual interest from August 10, 2024, and to pay ₹30,000 as costs.
Transfusion monitoring failures
In its order, the forum noted that acute transfusion reactions such as transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) and transfusion-related acute lung injury require close monitoring of vital signs at 15-minute intervals. Any abnormal signs, including fever, hypotension, dyspnoea, chills or rashes, warrant immediate stoppage of transfusion and clinical evaluation.
However, in the present case, the records of the third blood transfusion on August 8, 2024, showed inconsistencies and omissions. The start time was recorded in advance, there was no end time, post-transfusion vitals were missing, and pre-transfusion vitals were incompletely documented much earlier, the forum observed. These lapses, it said, pointed to gross negligence by hospital staff in administering prescribed treatment.
The complainant also alleged that repeated requests for a bedpan during transfusion were ignored, forcing the patient to walk to the washroom, interrupting the transfusion multiple times. The forum noted that the records reflected a lack of close monitoring during transfusion, leaving the patient unattended during a critical period.
Poor documentation, unclear treatment protocol
The forum further found that the hospital failed to explain the treatment protocol followed for the patient, either in its written version, affidavit evidence or arguments. It observed that doctors’ visits were poorly recorded, with missing timings, signatures and follow-up actions in the patient’s progress notes, despite the patient being in a serious condition.
While the hospital claimed the patient was a severe alcoholic with microcytic anaemia and low haemoglobin, the forum noted that subsequent investigations did not clearly support the diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease or sepsis with multiple organ dysfunctions, as claimed. It also found no clear treatment plan addressing these conditions in the case sheet.
Deficiency in service, not proven medical negligence
The patient was eventually discharged under LAMA while on mechanical ventilation. The forum clarified that it was not examining subsequent treatment elsewhere. It held that although there was no conclusive evidence that medical negligence directly caused the death, there were multiple instances of gross negligence and lack of coordination in providing essential services during hospitalisation.
Taking these deficiencies into account, the forum awarded compensation on non-economic grounds, citing the loss of companionship to the patient’s wife and the loss of love, affection and support to his two unmarried daughters.
Accordingly, the forum answered the primary issue in favour of the complainant and directed the hospital to refund treatment charges, pay compensation and bear litigation costs.
