Holding that a hospital cannot simply “wash its hands” of a patient after advising transfer to a higher centre, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed ILS Hospital to pay Rs 15 lakh compensation to the husband of a 43-year-old woman who died while being shifted to another medical facility.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De (president) and Mridula Roy (member) found a “palpable and glaring” deficiency in service on the part of ILS Hospital, noting that the patient remained stranded for nearly three hours after doctors advised an urgent transfer, because no critical care ambulance was available.
“A three-hour delay due to ambulance unavailability may be viewed as a deficiency as hospitals are institutional providers. A lack of essential infrastructure, such as life-saving transport for a patient advised for transfer, can be considered a direct deficiency in service. In emergency scenarios, hospitals have a constitutional and legal duty under Article 21 (Right to life) to provide for and arrange timely medical care, including necessary transport to a higher centre,” the May 29 order read.
The consumer body was hearing a complaint filed by Sanat Kumar Bhattacharya, who sought nearly Rs 45 lakh in compensation from ILS Hospital and the treating doctors, alleging that negligence in treatment and delay in transferring his wife led to her death.
‘Hospital solely liable’
- The commission observed that the three-hour delay was due to administrative hurdles which indicated a deficiency in service on the part of the said hospital.
- It was found that the three-hour delay in shifting a critical cardiac patient – especially after a scan confirmed a complication – is a significant window of time for medical negligence or deficiency of service.
- The consumer body held that even if a doctor follows accepted medical protocols, the hospital remains responsible for the overall environment and quality of care provided to the patient.
- The commission stated that the treatment records reveal a critical lapse in care and the hospital authority failed to facilitate the urgent transit of the patient, who tragically succumbed while en route to Apollo Hospital.
- It noted that the evidence placed on record confirms a total absence of critical care ambulance services at the said hospital.
- A critical care ambulance (CCA) is a resource the hospital facility was duty-bound to provide for a patient in such dire extremity.
- When a doctor discloses the situation and advises shifting the patient, the hospital’s liability does not necessarily end with that advice.
- A hospital still has a duty of care during the transition and any “golden hour” lost due to administrative delays is often viewed as negligence.
- The commission noted that the facility lacked the specific apparatus for cardio-thoracic interventions and advanced life-support transit.
- It further observed that where a hospital’s own ambulance is unavailable, it must take proactive steps to arrange one from alternative sources or even seek police assistance to prevent delays in transfer.
- Finding no evidence that any such measures were undertaken, it held the hospital solely liable and directed it to pay Rs 15 lakh as compensation within eight weeks.
An antacid, hospital visit and delay
It was placed on record that on November 19, 2015, Susmita Bhattacharya, the complainant’s wife, experienced vomiting and severe pain in her abdomen. She took an antacid after being advised by her physician over the phone, but felt no relief.
Subsequently, she visited a doctor called Dr Sushil Kumar Saha, who attended to her at 4 pm and treated her with medicine and administered an injection. The doctor further attended to the woman at 7 pm on the same date and gave her medicine and an injection.
However, it was claimed that his wife’s health gradually deteriorated. The next day, the husband contacted ILS Hospital, which advised him to get his wife admitted. It was alleged that in the meantime, she faced shortness of breath and her urine output had totally stopped.
Story continues below this ad
However, the husband got her admitted in critical condition at ILS Hospital at about 4 am on November 20, 2015. Later, the complainant came to know that ILS Hospital had no arrangement of ICCU and infrastructure to deal with such a critical patient, though the hospital authority had initially assured him about the ICCU arrangement.
It was claimed that after a series of diagnostic tests and consultations, the treating doctors discovered that she was suffering from a complex condition involving intestinal obstruction and a severe oesophageal complication that could require specialised cardio-thoracic intervention.
The husband alleged that despite being aware of its infrastructural limitations, the hospital continued treatment for several hours before eventually informing the family that it lacked the specialised facilities and surgical backup required for the case. The doctors thereafter advised that the patient be shifted to a higher medical centre such as Apollo Hospital.
A key grievance raised by the complainant was that although the decision to transfer the patient was taken around 12.30 pm after the CT scan findings were reviewed, the discharge process was completed only around 4.40 pm. During this period, no critical care ambulance was made available by the hospital, forcing the family to arrange transport on their own.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant argued that this delay took up the most critical treatment window and that the hospital’s failure to provide timely transfer facilities directly contributed to the death of his wife while on the way to Apollo Hospital.
‘Institutional negligence’
Appearing for the complainant, advocate Swapan Kr Pal argued that while a series of diagnostic investigations were initiated, the medical staff burdened the husband with ominous warnings regarding the escalating financial implications.
He claimed that this factor had purportedly consumed the most critical windows of time for his client’s wife.
The husband contended that a dire deficiency in infrastructure and a catastrophic failure to secure a critical care ambulance resulted in the patient being needlessly detained for hours.
Story continues below this ad
He argued that this institutional negligence and the hospital’s failure to provide timely medical intervention directly culminated in the woman’s untimely passing.
‘No deficiency in service’
Representing the hospital and the doctors concerned, advocates Binota Roy and Moushumi Sarkar contended that upon the patient’s admission, the doctors had diligently administered a comprehensive course of treatment, strictly adhering to established medical protocols.
They claimed that since her admission at 4 am till her transfer, the treating doctors had tried everything as per international medical protocol and had left no stone unturned to stabilise her.
They contended that the husband had significantly failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the hospital authority or the doctors.
