During the 2015 Chennai floods, MIOT Hospital was flooded and without power, resulting in the unfortunate demise of 18 patients.
Published Dec 21, 2023 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 21, 2023 | 12:00 PM
While the Commission found the hospital accountable for administrative negligence, it acknowledged that, despite the considerable extent of this negligence, it did not amount to willful negligence. (Supplied)
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Court has ordered a prominent private hospital in Chennai to pay ₹20 lakh as compensation for the death of a patient during the 2015 Chennai floods.
Complainant Shanthi Kalaiarasan alleged that her husband had died of negligence on the part of the Madras Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Hospital (MIOT). The hospital’s intensive care unit, located on the ground floor, was inundated in the savage rains that lashed the city in November-December 2015.
She said that the hospital did not take any precautionary steps despite a forecast of heavy rains and warnings by government agencies. The hospital’s oversight resulted in a power outage and consequently, vital life-support systems failed. Shanthi’s husband was among 18 patients who died.
“It is obvious that the failure of both the power, backup facilities, and the life support system, which were under the management and control of the hospital at the time of calamity, was due to the negligent ignorance of the hospital’s administration to diligently foresee the disaster despite prior information and thereby, they failed in averting the loss of human lives and protecting the infrastructure,” the court said in its judgement.
“A case of administrative negligence is thus clearly made out and there is no difficulty for this Commission to fix the liability upon the hospital,” it added.
Besides mandating the hospital to pay ₹20 lakh as compensation to the complainant, MIOT was also asked to bear an extra cost of ₹2 lakh.
Shanthi’s husband suffered a head injury in 2015 and was diagnosed with acute haemorrhagic stroke and brainstem haemorrhage at another hospital. He was later shifted to MIOT to avail insurance coverage.
At MIOT, he was diagnosed with hypertensive brainstem bleeding with status epilepticus and was admitted to the ICU. He was unconscious and after undergoing tracheostomy and intubation, his breathing was stabilised with ventilator support.
Due to restrictions on visitors and heavy rains and flooding in the city, the complainant was unable to visit the hospital for three consecutive days from 1 December.
She claimed that the hospital authorities did not inform her about the flood situation. She came to know of her husband’s death through the media on 4 December 2015.
Shanthi contested the death certificate, alleging a deliberate misrepresentation that cited the diagnosed ailments at the time of admission as the cause of death.
She asserted that her husband, along with other patients in the ICU, died due to a lack of ventilator support. Despite flooding in November, the hospital did not advise the patients to move to other facilities.
The complainant argued that the hospital ignored warnings by the state government. It started evacuating patients only on the evening of 3 December. Emphasising these factors, she alleged clear negligence and carelessness on the part of the hospital authorities and asserted that it was a suitable case for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).
Countering the allegation, the hospital claimed that the patient — identified as an alcoholic — suffered from various severe health issues, including hypertension, diabetes, and lung complications.
Regarding the flood incident, the hospital said that the situation was beyond its control due to the overflowing of the Adyar river. The floodwater affected a chocolate factory and subsequently breached the hospital’s wall, resulting in substantial losses.
MIOT further contended that the heavy rains led to a city-wide power failure in Chennai and Kancheepuram districts, over which they had no control. They emphasised taking necessary steps to rescue and assist patients by relocating them to other hospitals in the city.
Additionally, the hospital cited a decision by the Madras High Court related to a public interest litigation filed in 2015. The high court Bench had dismissed all allegations against the hospital regarding deaths during the floods, instructing the police authorities to submit a final report after a thorough investigation.
Denying any negligence on its part, the hospital argued that the complainant’s husband succumbed to his illnesses, including refractory status epilepticus, brainstem haemorrhage, septic shock, acute kidney injury on acute peritoneal dialysis, type-II diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.
It asserted that the patient received top-notch medical care and treatment, and the cause of death listed on the hospital’s death certificate was corroborated by the postmortem certificate issued by a government hospital.
The Consumer Commission noted that in instances of administrative negligence, the onus of providing proof to demonstrate that it undertook all essential and reasonable precautions to avert potential harm from an anticipated calamity or danger rested on the hospital.
Addressing the specific circumstances of the case, wherein the complainant contended that the hospital neglected to implement requisite preventive measures in anticipation of rains and floods, the Commission observed that “merely because the power outage and the consequent life support failure was caused due to heavy flooding, the hospital authorities cannot seek to be absolved without showing something further to indicate that preventive and proactive measures were taken well in advance and that despite their anticipatory measures, the mishap had become inevitable.”
The Commission also found that despite the ability to foresee and diligently prepare for any emergency that was well fathomable from the weather forecasts frequently updated, the administration of the hospital deliberately failed to take any real anticipatory measure to protect the power units and the critically-ill patients on the lower floors.
The consumer court noted that the hospital could have shifted the patient to another hospital or elevated floors of the international block of MIOT which had all facilities. The failure amounted to a breach of duty to ensure continuous availability of life support to the patient. It also pointed out that the manual ventilator did not function properly.
The Commission expressed the view that the hospital’s deficiency in life support facilities played a role as a contributing factor in the demise of a majority of critically-ill patients. Drawing attention to the high court Bench’s ruling, the consumer court clarified that the order specifically addressed the matter of “unauthorised construction” and did not encompass the broader issue of “negligence”.
While the Commission found the hospital accountable for administrative negligence, it acknowledged that despite the considerable extent of the negligence, it was not willful.
It mandated the hospital to pay the compensation within six weeks.
