In a significant ruling, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) exonerated a Pathankot-based eye hospital accused of medical negligence during a patient’s eye surgery. The court dismissed the allegations, citing a lack of evidence to prove that the hospital had even performed the claimed surgery.
The case dates back to 2020, when the complainant suffered an eye injury at work and sought treatment at the hospital. The patient claimed the hospital diagnosed a foreign particle lodged in his left eye after conducting an X-ray and recommended surgery to remove it. The patient further alleged that post-surgery complications led to worsening of his eye condition, resulting in additional medical treatment at another facility.
Despite the patient's claims of negligence, the Commission found no supporting evidence to substantiate that surgery had been performed at the Pathankot hospital.
The complainant accused the hospital of failing to address his injury appropriately, leading to severe complications. After the alleged surgery, the patient reported that his left eye deteriorated further due to an infection. He stated that he had to undergo additional treatment at a hospital in Amritsar, incurring significant costs and losing his ability to work.
Filing a consumer complaint, the patient demanded Rs 20,00,000 in damages for the physical, emotional, and financial toll of the incident.
However, the hospital refuted these allegations, stating that the complainant had arrived 48 hours after the injury, already having received prior treatment at a local clinic. They argued that the complainant's eye was infected and filled with pus and blood upon his arrival, making surgery impossible. Instead, they provided initial treatment with medication and advised follow-up care.
The complainant has viciously accused the hospital without evidence, seemingly for an ulterior purpose.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The District Consumer Commission initially dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of negligence. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed the decision to the State Consumer Commission, Punjab.
In the appeal, the State Commission thoroughly examined the case details and found no record of any surgery being performed. The hospital maintained that it only administered preliminary treatment and prescribed medication, as the eye's condition was unsuitable for surgical intervention.
The Punjab Consumer Court upheld the District Commission's ruling, finding no merit in the complainant’s claims. The court observed that the complainant’s accusations against the hospital seemed baseless and potentially motivated by ulterior purposes.
“The complainant has viciously accused the hospital without evidence, seemingly for an ulterior purpose,” the Commission remarked.
The judgment emphasized the lack of documented proof to substantiate the claim that the hospital performed surgery on the complainant’s eye. The court also acknowledged the hospital’s explanation that the patient’s eye condition was already compromised before seeking their care.
There was no proof to support the claims of negligence or that surgery was performed
Punjab Consumer Court Judgment
This ruling underscores the importance of evidence-based claims in medical negligence cases. While patients have the right to seek redress for genuine grievances, courts also safeguard healthcare providers from unwarranted allegations that lack supporting proof.
In this case, the hospital successfully demonstrated that it followed appropriate protocols given the patient’s condition. The absence of surgical records or other supporting evidence rendered the complainant's claims untenable.
The exoneration of the Pathankot hospital sets a precedent for handling similar allegations in the future. The case highlights the need for patients and their representatives to provide substantial proof when filing complaints against medical institutions. It also serves as a reminder to healthcare providers to maintain thorough documentation to protect themselves from unfounded claims.
The court’s decision reinforces the principle that medical professionals should not be held accountable for outcomes beyond their control, provided they act within the bounds of medical standards and ethics.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Yash Kamble/MSM)
