Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

prompted him to transfer his wife to the Respondent Hospital. However, on arrival, the Hospital failed to provide the promised ICU bed, which omission itself evidences negligence. In response, Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel representing the NMC, has explained that the Petitioner's wife was promptly placed in the Crash Room of the Respondent Hospital, a facility equipped with comprehensive medical support, including ventilator assistance. He has emphasized that the lack of an available ICU bed did not, in any way, undermine or affect the standard of care provided to the Petitioner's wife.

"DMC Act"

34. With respect to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Singhdev has clarified that Dr. Ahuja, did indeed, attend to the Petitioner's wife. He has explained that the observation recorded in the impugned order of the NMC pertains specifically to the patient's treatment in the Emergency Department on 13 th October 2016. It is, therefore, undisputed that Dr. Ahuja attended to the Petitioner's wife on 14th October 2016, a fact that is duly recorded in the medical records of the Petitioner's wife at the Respondent Hospital. This clarification resolves the alleged discrepancy, and the Court finds no prejudice arising from the NMC's observation, which must be understood in light of the changing timeline of the treatment and the differing roles doctors played on specific dates.