Here is a case of medical negligence that reflects the poor infrastructure in many government hospitals. The order of the consumer court, holding the state government vicariously liable for the death of the patient, should send out a clear signal to state administrations that consumer courts will take a very serious view of such administrative incompetence.

The victim was a young mother who was admitted to the government hospital in Pauri Garhwal, Uttaranchal, with pregnancy-related complications. The hospital was apparently not equipped to deal with the potentially life threatening medical condition.

Since there was no anaesthetist, an ophthalmologist doubled up as an anaesthetist and the gynaecologist performed an emergency surgery to save the child. However, despite the fact that the mother was bleeding profusely, she was not given blood. Since the hospital could not keep post-surgery patients, she was moved to the female hospital and forced to walk the distance. She died soon after.

In his complaint before the state consumer disputes redressal commission the husband,Vinod Prasad Nautiyal, argued that the absence of adequate facilities coupled with the callous negligence of the doctors led to his wife’s death.

The opposite parties — the doctors and the state government — argued that they did everything they could to save the mother and child.

The state commission held the doctors and the state government jointly liable and awarded a compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh. Both the parties appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which increased the compensation by a lakh. It also pointed out that the operation was performed without any arrangement for blood. Describing this as “gross negligence”, the national commission observed: “We agree with the state commission that no expert opinion is required to establish that they constitute acts of professional negligence”.

Although this case goes back to 1993, even today many government hospitals do not have basic facilities. This order should force governments to pay more attention to this aspect. Similarly, in many cases in the past, the consumer courts have held that poor post-operative care constitutes negligence and doctors and hospitals guilty of such negligence will be held liable. This order reinforces that. (Vinod Prasad Nautiyal vs Smt Savitri Uniyal and others FA no. 79 of 2005, decided on May 20, 2011).