The Jaipur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Narayana Multispecialty Hospital to pay Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and Rs. 10,000 for litigation expenses to a patient, Radheshyam Bansal, on May 21, 2026. The decision stems from a complaint filed by Bansal alleging medical negligence during a laparoscopic surgery.
Background of the Case
Radheshyam Bansal approached Narayana Multispecialty Hospital for treatment, undergoing a laparoscopic surgery on May 16, 2011. He was asked to deposit Rs. 1,45,000, of which Rs. 70,000 was paid on May 16, 2011, and Rs. 75,000 on May 18, 2011.
Following the surgery on May 18, 2011, Bansal was shifted to the general ward and discharged on May 27, 2011. He claimed that after deducting Rs. 1,40,600 for treatment, the hospital returned Rs. 4,400 as the remaining amount. Later, upon inquiring, the hospital provided the charges for the medicine and tests.
Allegations of Negligence
The patient’s complaint stated that he experienced abdominal pain again on October 3, 2012. He consulted doctors at SMS Hospital, who advised him to undergo another laparoscopic surgery. Bansal alleged that the laparoscopic surgery performed by Narayana Multispecialty Hospital was unsuccessful and that the hospital was deficient in its service.
He further claimed that the hospital did not conduct the surgery properly, leading to the need for a repeat procedure. This, he argued, constituted a deficiency in service and caused him mental distress.
Hospital’s Defense
Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, in its defense, stated that the patient had been complaining of abdominal pain for two to three months prior. He had undergone an angiocardiography at SR Kalla Hospital on April 6, 2016, and later consulted Fortis Hospital, where both hospitals advised him against laparoscopic surgery due to blockages.
The hospital refuted the claim that the laparoscopic surgery was not done correctly. They argued that Bansal’s assertion that the surgery was unsuccessful and required a repeat procedure was false. The hospital maintained that no written report was provided by the patient indicating the surgery’s failure.
Furthermore, the hospital contended that no doctor could definitively state that a blockage in the arteries would not occur again after a laparoscopic surgery. They also noted that the patient experienced abdominal pain again on October 3, 2012, and required another laparoscopic procedure, which they argued was not a result of their initial treatment’s failure.
District Consumer Forum’s Decision
After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum upheld the patient’s complaint. The forum found the hospital guilty of deficiency in service and medical negligence.
The forum’s order stated that the hospital must pay Rs. 50,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000 for the cost of litigation. Failure to pay within one month from the date of the order would result in the hospital paying an interest of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the order until its realization.
Appeal and Higher Commission’s Ruling
The hospital filed an appeal against the District Forum’s decision with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The hospital’s advocate, Lokesh Kumar, argued that the District Forum’s findings were based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
He pointed out that the patient himself admitted to experiencing pain on October 3, 2012, and that it was discovered that the laparoscopic surgery performed at the hospital on May 16, 2011, was not done correctly. This admission, he argued, supported the need for a repeat surgery.
However, the State Commission, in its judgment dated May 21, 2026, upheld the District Forum’s order. The commission found no reason to interfere with the lower forum’s findings regarding the hospital’s deficiency in service and negligence.
Implications and Future Outlook
This ruling underscores the importance of medical professionals adhering to established standards of care and ensuring the accuracy and completeness of surgical procedures. Patients have recourse through consumer forums when they believe they have been subjected to medical negligence.
The case highlights the critical role of thorough pre-operative assessments, accurate post-operative follow-up, and clear communication between healthcare providers and patients. It serves as a reminder for hospitals to maintain high standards of service and accountability.
Moving forward, this verdict may encourage more patients to seek redressal for perceived medical negligence. It also puts healthcare institutions on notice to rigorously review their protocols and ensure patient safety and satisfaction. The focus will likely remain on the quality of surgical outcomes and the transparency of billing and treatment processes in medical facilities across the region.
