The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has rejected a compensation claim of Rs one crore made by a father from Mira Road, who alleged that his 24-year-old son, a medical intern, died due to medical negligence at his medical college in Amravati. The commission observed that a medical intern cannot be treated as a hospital’s employee, leading to the rejection of the claim.

The commission stated, “An intern cannot be equated with a regular employee. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, an intern is defined as an advanced student or a recent graduate who is apprenticing to gain practical experience before entering a specific profession.” The complaint was not considered to be that of a “consumer” as there was no payment made for any service. Therefore, it was decided that the complaint was not eligible for a consumer redressal claim.

The case was brought before the NCDRC by Amarjeet B. Mishra in 2022, after his plea had been dismissed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The state commission had also imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the complainant. Mishra had sought compensation, alleging that his son, Vijay Mishra, who had completed his MBBS from Dr. Panjabrao Alias Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College in 2015, had died due to the hospital’s medical negligence while serving as an intern.

The incident occurred on March 24, 2015, when Amarjeet received a call and rushed to Amravati, where he was informed that his son had passed away earlier that day. According to Amarjeet, more than 400 doctors, including interns, had staged a protest (dharna) outside the hospital following his son’s death, which he claimed was caused by the hospital’s failure to provide necessary life-saving equipment and other medical facilities.

Following an order by the Bombay High Court, an investigation into the matter was conducted by the Crime Investigation Department (CID). The father referred to alleged chat messages and claimed that not only were essential medical facilities unavailable, but there may have also been foul play involved in his son’s death. He further alleged that some students were responsible for his son’s death, possibly due to his closeness to a female student, and that something had been mixed in his drinks.

The hospital, however, denied all the allegations. According to the hospital’s submission, Amarjeet was informed of his son’s ill health at around 4:00 a.m. on March 24, 2015. It was also denied that the protest by the doctors and interns was due to any deficiency in the hospital’s services or the lack of necessary equipment. The hospital asserted that the protest was merely a natural reaction to the sudden death of a colleague.

The hospital maintained that Vijay Mishra had died due to a heart attack and refuted the claim of any mysterious circumstances leading to his death. Additionally, it was stated that there was no request made by the complainant for a post-mortem examination of the deceased.

The commission’s ruling reinforced that interns are not considered regular employees of the hospital, and since no payment was made for specific medical services, the father could not be considered a consumer. As a result, the claim was dismissed.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Ankur Deka/MSM)