A medical emergency moves across hospitals, with urgency building at each step — but decisions lag behind. At a critical moment, it is not protocol alone, but external pressure and social media visibility that appear to influence action.
The case looks at how delayed responses, across touchpoints, can converge into a larger question of responsibility.
Irrefutable Facts
The patient was under the obstetrician’s Ante-Natal Care (ANC). One evening, the patient suffered mild chest pain and consulted the obstetrician, who assured that everything was normal. However, late in the evening, the patient developed severe lower abdominal pain, and the obstetrician was telephonically contacted.
At that instant, the patient was advised to seek admission at a higher centre, the first hospital. The patient was taken to the first hospital but could not be admitted as the hospital was full of Covid patients.
Subsequently, the patient was rushed to the second hospital with elevated BP, and she was already in a state of collapse. Unfortunately, the patient could not be admitted even at the second hospital.
Finally, at midnight, the patient was taken to the third hospital but was admitted after a delay of about half an hour. The patient was resuscitated but died the following morning.
Her family sued the obstetrician and all the three hospitals. It was alleged that when the patient experienced mild chest discomfort, the obstetrician sent her home with false assurance that everything was normal.
Later, when the patient suffered severe lower abdominal pain and the obstetrician was telephonically consulted, she allegedly refused to prescribe medication or visit the patient at her home.
It was further alleged that the second hospital denied admission despite several requests based on obstetrician’s instructions. It was pointed out that when the patient reached the third hospital, she was already in a state of collapse. Despite this, the third hospital initially denied the admission.
Finally, the patient’s husband streamed a live video on a social platform. Also, the police issued a warning. Only on that note, the third hospital admitted the patient, but almost half an hour had been lost by that time.
Hospital’s Plea
It was stated by the second hospital that the patient was managed with preliminary treatment, and an ambulance was arranged for her transfer to the third hospital for further management.
The second hospital further stated that the obstetrician was immediately contacted when the patient was brought; however, she instructed the staff not to admit the patient, citing the lack of appropriate facilities at the second hospital. Therefore, the patient was not admitted.
Court’s Observations
The court on perusal of the expert opinion found that the patient was suffering from “Eclampsia, which is a pregnancy-induced hyper-tensive disorder with super imposed seizures/convulsions, which is largely preventable.”
The court further observed that “each transfer and transport had added to the seriousness and severity of Eclampsia.”
The court observed that on the ill-fated night, the obstetrician “not only refused to prescribe medicine, but also did not make any effort to see the patient but only advised her hospital admission,“ drawing an adverse inference against her.
The court observed from the medical records that the third hospital was the patient’s last stop in the fatal journey occurring at midnight. It kept the patient waiting for at least 35 minutes before admitting her, and that too only due to “the threat of exposure in the social media and a telephone call from the local police station.”
Tragically, after this, the patient met her demise, prompting the court to hold this as ‘apathy’ on the part of the third hospital.
The court also took cognizance of the telephonic conversation between the staff of second hospital and obstetrician, which indicated that the obstetrician believed the hospital lacked necessary facilities to manage the patient.
The court observed that the second hospital could not go beyond attending doctor’s instructions.
The court expressed its displeasure as the lower court had failed to thoroughly examine medical protocols adopted by the third hospital in managing the patient and for holding the second hospital solely responsible for unfortunate demise of the patient.
Hence, the court remanded the case to the lower court for re-adjudication.
Prevention Is Better Than Cure
i. Social media can make or break the reputation of any person or organization today. It is a double-edged sword. Doctors / hospitals should be aware of its power and pay attention to this aspect as well.
ii. Hospitals and their staff often face dilemmas in taking a decision to admit an emergency patient, especially when the patient approaches the hospital of their own choice and the treating doctor instructs the hospital not to admit the patient for valid reasons. Nevertheless, walking the extra mile even if the patient is not admitted is always appreciated by the court.
Source : Park Hospitals & Anr. v/s The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory
Get 7 days online access of this case’s abstract and its complete judgment for INR 250
Subscribe to this Case