Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Lack of Necessary Specialists and Infrastructure Constitute Gross Deficiency in Service: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, serious concerns were highlighted regarding the medical negligence resulting in the tragic death of a patient and her twin babies at Sunita Monga Memorial Deviya Darshan Swasthya Kender in Ferozepur. The Commission concluded that the hospital's lack of necessary specialists and infrastructure underscored a gross deficiency in service.

The judgment critically revolved around the hospital’s responsibility and accountability in handling high-risk medical cases, with a particular emphasis on the requirements for adequate facilities and specialist availability in medical institutions.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Hardeep Singh, whose wife, Jaswinder Kaur, suffered a fatal mishap during childbirth at the hospital in question. Despite the high-risk nature of a twin pregnancy, the hospital admitted her without the requisite medical infrastructure or the availability of essential specialists like a gynecologist, pediatrician, and anesthesiologist. The complaint emphasized that the hospital, driven by financial incentives, recklessly handled the situation leading to the death of his wife and newborns.

Infrastructure and Specialist Availability: The Court noted, "The hospital was not equipped with basic infrastructure or specialist doctors essential for managing high-risk cases." This lack of preparedness was pivotal in the judgment.

Professional Competency: It was established that Dr. Baljit Kaur, who managed the delivery, was not qualified to handle such complex cases independently. The medical board's report highlighted that she was a General Nurse Midwife (GNM), not a qualified doctor, which misrepresented her capabilities to the patient's family.

Hospital Management’s Liability: Despite claims from the hospital’s management disassociating themselves from the medical operations, the court found that there was an undeniable responsibility that the management had to ensure proper medical facilities were in place.

Insurance Coverage and Liability: The role of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. was scrutinized, with the court examining the extent of liability coverage and the implications of insurance in cases of medical negligence.

Decision:The Commission affirmed the District Commission's order, mandating a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant for the loss suffered, alongside litigation costs. It was also held that the insurance company was liable to compensate under the policy terms, though specific delineations of payment responsibility were clarified to reflect the roles of various parties involved.

Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

Hardeep Singh vs. Sunita Monga Memorial Deviya Darshan Swasthya Kender & Ors

Similar News