What consumer court said when a patient approached it after 210 days?

       

Best deal on DSLRs 

Legal fever 

Why Section 24A hangs like a sword of Damocles for doctors

Whether you like it or not, no doctor must take the implications of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lightly and if he or she dows, it would be to their management's peril.

This is because this particular section empowers the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to admit a  complaint from a patient till two years from the occurence date of alleged medical negligence.

Technically, it means if a patient were to develop complications ( say after a year and half of his or her surgery) and die, the patient’s attendants can still approach the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission seeking relief.

The case may be admitted by the consumer forum irrespective of the fact that the actual act falls under the definition of medical negligence or not.

Live Case from Apollo Hospitals:

While undergoing treatment at Apollo Health City between July to Octobber, 2012, Ashok Balliwar from Jukkal, Nizamabad acquired infection from Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), the superbug that’s responsible for hospital acquired infection.

The complainant alleged before Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 158 of 2015 in CCSR No. 469 of 2015 that it was due to medical negligence of the doctors at Apollo Health City Campus that he acquired hospital acquired infection, resulting in septic shock.

This was contested by Apollo Hospital in a revision petition filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in 2017 claiming that it was wrong on the part of State Consumer Commission to have allowed the case after a gap of 210 days of the incident.

The State Commission allowed the application for condonation of delay of 210 days, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the Bar Association by the complainant and condoned the delay.

However,  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order said that complaint was filed within the limitation period of two years as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and directed the state commission to continue hearing the case as per the law.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.