Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant decision, the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai has recently ruled in favor of a complaint against Mentor of Madras Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Hospital (MIOT) Hospital, citing negligence and service deficiency.

The complaint, brought forward by one Shanthi KalaiArasan, alleged that the hospital's failure to anticipate and manage flooding during the rainy season in 2015, despite warnings from government agencies, resulted in a power outage. This outage led to the failure of critical life support systems, including ventilators in the Medical ICU located in the basement, causing the tragic deaths of 18 patients, including Shanthi's husband.

Justice R. Subbiah, presiding over the bench, held the hospital responsible for administrative negligence contributing to the patients' deaths. Consequently, the Commission directed MIOT Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 20,00,000 to Shanthi, along with an additional cost of Rs 2,00,000.

Shanthi's husband suffered a head injury on November 11th, 2015, and was initially treated at another hospital for a brain hemorrhage. Subsequently, he was moved to MIOT Hospital for further care due to the severity of his condition, requiring intensive care, including ventilator support.

She claimed that the Hospital had restrictions on attendants' presence during specific hours and due to heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding on December 1st, 2015 when she was told that her husband was showing some improvement in health, she could not reach the hospital on 2nd and 3rd December. And two days later, on December 4, 2015, she learned about her husband's death through media announcements, despite her attempts to obtain information from the hospital.

Her complaint highlighted inaccuracies in the death certificate, attributing the cause of death to underlying ailments instead of acknowledging the lack of ventilator support due to the power outage during the flood.

Emphasizing the foreseeability of the disaster and the alleged negligence in not evacuating patients despite warnings, Shanthi sought compensation for the mental agony and financial losses suffered.

In its defense, MIOT Hospital cited the patient's history of alcoholism and various severe health issues, including hypertension, diabetes, and lung complications. They argued that their limited visitation protocol for critically ill patients aimed to prevent infections. Regarding the floods, they claimed a situation beyond their control due to the overflowing Adyar River and the subsequent breach of the hospital's wall.

The hospital referred to a Madras High Court decision in response to a PIL, which rejected allegations against them and directed police authorities to file a final report after due investigation.

The hospital denied negligence, asserting steps taken to ensure patient safety during the floods, including a "Disaster Management Unit" for oxygen supply and electricity backup. They disputed the claim that the patient's death occurred due to negligence on their part, attributing it to the patient's severe medical conditions.

The Commission found that the hospital's failure to shift patients from the flooded Medical ICU, despite prior warnings, indicated negligence. This negligence, while not intentional, resulted in a breach of duty regarding continuous life support, the commission held.

The Commission also noted negligence in the hospital's disaster response. Dismissing the hospital's reliance on the Madras High Court's order, it clarified that it did not cover the "negligence" issue but focused only on "unauthorized construction."

Further, rejecting claims of the multiplicity of proceedings or forum shopping, the Commission highlighted the distinct reliefs sought under different legal provisions in the consumer complaint and a criminal complaint.

Emphasizing the hospital's obligation to reinforce its disaster management system, the Commission held the hospital liable for administrative negligence, directing them to compensate Shanthi.

Case Title: Shanthi KalaiArasan vs. M/s. Miot Hospitals