MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Saturday, 23 November 2024

Negligence death claim by former Chief Justice of India's kin dismissed by NCDRC

Apex consumer forum has ruled that there was no negligence or deficiency of service by the doctors and hospitals concerned as the former CJI died of multiple comorbidities and rejected the plea for Rs 10 crore compensation sought by Justice Verma’s wife and two daughters

R. Balaji New Delhi Published 15.06.23, 04:58 AM
The family had said they intended to put the compensation in a Trust in Justice Verma’s name and utilise it for charitable causes.

The family had said they intended to put the compensation in a Trust in Justice Verma’s name and utilise it for charitable causes. Representational picture

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed the claim by the family of former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma that he had died because of medical negligence of three prominent hospitals in Delhi-NCR and some leading doctors.

The apex consumer forum has ruled that there was no negligence or deficiency of service by the doctors and hospitals concerned as the former CJI died of multiple comorbidities and rejected the plea for Rs 10 crore compensation sought by Justice Verma’s wife and two daughters.

ADVERTISEMENT

The family had said they intended to put the compensation in a Trust in Justice Verma’s name and utilise it for charitable causes.

Justice Verma passed away on April 22, 2013, at the Medanta Hospital owned by Dr Naresh Trehan after being initially treated at the Bharadwaj Nursing and Maternity Home, Noida and the Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, Okhla.

“In the instant case, the standard medical protocols being followed by the… opposite parties, it was neither failure of duty of care nor any deficiency from the OPs. Prescribing Dabigartan was not the wrong decision… it was in the interest of the patient to save him from the cerebral stroke. Justice J.S. Verma, who was elderly (80 years) with multiple co-morbidities including chronic liver dysfunction and mid-range ejection fraction (40-45 per cent), grade III oesophagal varices; all these factors contributed to mortality. The death of Justice J.S. Verma was not attributable to the act of Ops (opposite party). We have deep sympathies with the death of Justice J.S. Verma, but it cannot be ground for liability,” the NCDRC said in a judgment on Tuesday.

The complaint was filed by the late CJI’s wife Pushpa Verma and their two daughters Shubhra Verma Bhatnagar and Dr Rashmi Mathur. Rashmi is an eminent doctor practising in the UK. The trio had filed the complaint seeking directions to the doctors and hospitals allegedly involved in the botch-up “to pay exemplary damage & compensation of Rs 100000000; and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

The family was represented by civil liberty activist Prashant Bhushan.

According to the complainants, Dr Sanjiv Bharadwaj, a cardiologist at the Fortis Hospital, had negligently prescribed Dabigatran (Pradaxa) tablet along with a combination of Clopidogrel and Amiodarone, which resulted in severe gastrointestinal bleeding and eventual death.

It was contended that no competent doctor could have advised the aforesaid medicines to a patient with abnormal liver function and impaired blood clotting after going through his reports.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa), an anticoagulant, was administered while Justice Verma was already taking Clopidogrel, which is an antiplatelet medicine. In addition, he was prescribed Amiodarone on admission, which is associated with hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity). Amiodarone is also known to have a drug interaction with the anticoagulant Dabigatran by increasing its plasma concentration and can cause fatal bleeding, the complaint alleged.

Rejecting the arguments, the NCDRC stated that for a successful claim, the victim’s family must prove all the “four D’s” against the erring doctor/hospital. The 4 D’s of medical negligence stand for duty, dereliction/deviation, direct (proximate) cause and damages.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT