NEW DELHI: A Delhi Consumer Commission has directed Metro Hospital & Heart Institute to pay Rs 15 lakh compensation for failing to arrange a life-support ambulance and medical supervision for a patient who had suffered a stroke.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that a hospital's duty of care does not end with providing treatment within its premises but extends to ensuring the safe transfer of critically ill patients to other medical facilities.
A bench presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, and also comprising Judicial Member Pinki, held that patients and their families could not be expected to independently arrange essential medical infrastructure during an emergency.
According to the complaint, Suresh Kumar, who had undergone a dual heart valve replacement procedure at AIIMS in 2008, developed severe breathing difficulties on November 13, 2013 and was admitted to Metro Hospital, where doctors diagnosed an obstruction in his artificial aortic valve.
He was administered streptokinase, a medication used to dissolve blood clots. However, he subsequently suffered a stroke that affected his speech and movement.
The hospital advised that Kumar be transferred to another medical facility for neurological treatment but failed to provide an appropriately equipped ambulance or an accompanying doctor. His family alleged that nearly five hours were lost before they independently arranged transportation to another hospital.
The bench observed that hospitals, “particularly those charging substantial fees”, cannot treat emergency transportation as an optional service.
"The duty of a hospital does not come to an end merely upon providing consultation or administering treatment within its premises. Rather, such duty necessarily encompasses taking reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the safety, continuity of care and well-being of the patient, including during the process of transferring the patient to another medical facility, wherever such transfer becomes necessary," the commission said.
The bench observed that the provision of basic emergency facilities, including an appropriately equipped ambulance and qualified medical personnel for patient transfer, “cannot be treated as an optional or dispensable service.”
"The failure to arrange for an ambulance and appropriate medical supervision during the transportation of a critical patient is not a mere procedural lapse or an inconsequential administrative omission," it said.
