IVF Death Case: Consumer Commission Rejects Medical Negligence Claim.


14 November 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights   |   Medical Negligence >> Consumer Rights  

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed an appeal of L. Rajendran v/s M/S. Credence Hospital Institute For Women\'s Health & Fertility Research, Rep. By Its Administrative Officer, Kerala & Another alleging medical negligence against a Kerala hospital following the death of a woman undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment. The appeal, filed by the deceased's husband, challenged the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision, which had previously ruled in favor of the hospital.

The case stemmed from the woman's death due to pulmonary embolism shortly after receiving an oestrogen and progesterone injection. The appellant argued that the hospital and its chief physician were negligent in administering the medication and providing post-medical care. He specifically contended that the medication should have been discontinued after a negative BETA-HCG test, indicating the failure of the embryo transfer. Furthermore, he alleged that the abrupt instruction to walk after the injection led to the fatal embolism.


 

 

However, the NCDRC, after reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the State Commission's decision. The Commission noted that the deceased was not admitted to the hospital at the time of her death and that the fatal injection was administered by a third-party clinic. The post-mortem report, while confirming pulmonary embolism as the cause of death, did not establish a direct link between the hospital's actions and the tragic outcome.

The NCDRC emphasized the established legal principles regarding medical negligence, referencing the Bolam Test and the Supreme Court's judgments in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. and V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr.. These precedents highlight the necessity of proving a deviation from standard medical practice and establishing a direct causal link between the alleged negligence and the resulting damage.

The Commission also addressed the appellant's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in cases where negligence is inferred from the nature of the injury. However, the NCDRC concluded that the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence to trigger this doctrine, as the hospital did not have exclusive control over the situation at the time of the deceased's death.

The NCDRC ultimately determined that the appellant did not provide enough evidence to prove medical negligence. The commission stated that the standard protocol for IVF treatment was followed by the hospital. The Commission also reiterated that many factors can cause DVT and Pulmonary Embolism, and the appellant had failed to prove the hospital caused or contributed to the occurence of either.

Consequently, the NCDRC dismissed the appeal, affirming the State Commission's order and denying any compensation to the appellant.
This case underscores the complexities involved in proving medical negligence, particularly in intricate medical procedures like IVF. It also highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the alleged negligence and the patient's injury or death.


Section 2, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Section 19, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986