NCDRC Holds Fortis Hiranandani Hospital Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Failure To Investigate IV Fluid Reaction Leading To Patient's Death
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has held Fortis Hiranandani Hospital liable for deficiency in service for failing to investigate an adverse reaction following the administration of IV fluids that preceded the patient's death. The Commission observed that the hospital's omission...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has held Fortis Hiranandani Hospital liable for deficiency in service for failing to investigate an adverse reaction following the administration of IV fluids that preceded the patient's death. The Commission observed that the hospital's omission to forensically examine the infused fluids amounted to mismanagement.
Brief Facts
The deceased, Navendu Shrivastava, was admitted to Fortis Hiranandani Hospital, Navi Mumbai (Opposite Party No. 2) on 12.12.2012 for surgery to treat Grade IV prolapsed hemorrhoids (piles), under the care of Dr. Sangram Karandikar (Opposite Party No. 1). The surgery was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. but was postponed due to non-availability of the operation theatre.
At around 4:15 p.m., the patient was administered intravenous (IV) fluids, following which he developed severe reactions — shivering, vomiting, redness of the skin, high fever, and breathlessness. The IV infusion was stopped, and he was shifted to the ICU as his condition deteriorated. Despite further treatment, his condition worsened, leading to sepsis, multi-organ failure, and death on 15.12.2012.
The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was pulmonary embolism along with leptospirosis with bleeding piles. The complainant, who is the widow of the deceased, filed a consumer complaint against Dr. Sangram Karandikar, Consultant Surgeon (Opposite Party No. 1); Fortis Hiranandani Hospital (Opposite Party No. 2); and Dr. Ramesh Tikare, Consultant Anesthesiologist (Opposite Party No. 3), alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Fortis Hiranandani Hospital (Opposite Party No. 2) failed to file its written statement within the prescribed time; as a result, the hospital's right to submit a written reply was forfeited by the Commission. However, its counsel was later allowed to make oral submissions during the hearing. The treating doctors (Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3) filed their written statement with a delay of 25 days, which was condoned by the Commission on payment of costs of ₹25,000.
Arguments by the Parties
The complainant contended that the death of her husband resulted from medical negligence and mismanagement by Fortis Hiranandani Hospital and the attending doctors. It was alleged that the hospital failed to provide appropriate care by delaying the scheduled surgery and keeping the patient on a fasting status (“nil by mouth”) for nearly 20 hours, which caused dehydration and aggravated his condition.
The complainant further argued that the delay occurred because the hospital prioritized Caesarean deliveries on the special date of 12.12.2012 for commercial gain, neglecting the urgent need for the patient's surgery. It was also submitted that the treating surgeon failed to assess the seriousness of the patient's condition, did not monitor him adequately despite being informed of his deterioration, and that the intravenous (IV) fluids administered were not examined even after the patient developed a severe reaction.
Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 3 — Dr. Sangram Karandikar (Consultant Surgeon) and Dr. Ramesh Tikare (Anesthesiologist) — denied the allegations, asserting that there was no negligence on their part and that all standard medical protocols were followed. They maintained that the patient had not yet undergone surgery when his condition worsened and that prompt treatment was provided.
The Opposite Party No.2,Fortis Hiranandani Hospital argued that the surgery was postponed for genuine reasons and not due to any preferential treatment. The hospital pointed out that several other surgeries were carried out on the same day, showing that there was no bias or commercial motive. The counsel also questioned the reliability of the medical report, claiming it was biased and not based on proper findings.
Findings of The Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that there was no medical negligence by the doctors who treated the patient. It observed that since the surgery was not performed, the surgeon or the anesthetist could not be held liable. Both doctors were qualified, skilled, and had provided proper treatment based on the patient's symptoms and test results.The Commission noted that the doctors promptly started treatment for Leptospirosis as soon as the deceased showed symptoms. It further held that there was no evidence showing that the doctors acted carelessly or failed to follow accepted medical practices. The expert report also did not find any negligence on the part of the treating doctors.
The Commission placed reliance on the expert report of AIIMS, which stated that while an adverse reaction to intravenous (IV) fluids was possible, there was no clear evidence of deficiency in management by the treating doctors. It also found that the affidavit of Dr. Rajendra S. Bangal, relied upon by the complainant, could not be accepted as credible expert evidence since he was a forensic expert and not a treating physician.
However, the Commission found Fortis Hiranandani Hospital guilty of deficiency in service. It held that the hospital failed to conduct any forensic or medical examination of the IV fluid that had caused the adverse reaction and that this omission amounted to mismanagement and a lapse in the standard of care expected from the institution.
On the issue of the delayed surgery and prolonged fasting, the Commission observed that the postponement was due to non-availability of the operation theatre and rejected the allegation that the hospital had prioritized Caesarean deliveries on the symbolic date of 12.12.2012 for commercial gain, noting that multiple other surgeries were conducted that day.
The Commission further noted that while the patient had developed shivering and fever after being administered IV fluids, there was no evidence of contamination or foul play in the medical records or test reports.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that no medical negligence was proved against the treating doctors, but the hospital was liable for deficiency in service due to its failure to investigate the cause of the IV fluid reaction. It directed Fortis Hiranandani Hospital to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to the complainant, along with 9% interest from the date of death until realization.
Case Title : Mrs. Richa Navendu Shrivastava vs Fortis Healthcare CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 292 OF 2013