6.170 The Commission sought reports from the hospitals he had visited that night. The Commission observed that the LNJP report was not at all convincing. It quoted guidelines of the Medicine Department according to which every case of T.B. is to be referred to concerned T.B. Centre if the condition of the patient is stable. However, the guidelines are not to be compulsorily adhered to in every case. According to the protocol, the condition of the patient has to be kept in mind while making the reference to a T.B. Centre. If the patient is brought to the hospital at an odd hour of the night with a complaint of fever and cough with expectoration, it is inhumane on the part of the doctor to turn him away on the ground of protocol. In the opinion of the Commission it was a fit case for issue of notice u/s 18(c) of the PHRA. 6.171 While considering the matter, the Commission observed: “A doctor's profession is not only pious but it also demands a profound sense of responsibility. The Hippocratic Oath must be upper-most in the doctor's mind. His conduct should always be characterized by compassion for the patient. The poor and the resourceless should always have the first claim on his attention. If a poor patient is turned away from the hospital it not only brings the medical profession to disrepute but is also an affront to human rights of the patient.” 6.172 The Commission gave its reasons to feel sceptical about the claims made by the Government: “When Dr. K.D. Mehta, Additional Medical Superintendent, LNJP Hospital submitted his report dated 20.4.2007, there was not a word in it about the admission of the patient or his treatment as detailed in the communication dated 2.8.2007. The administration claims to have administered five bottles of intravenous fluids to the patient. Administration of five bottles would take quite some time and in that case it could not have been possible to discharge the patient on the same night. More over, the administration itself admits that Ravinder had come to the hospital in the night with complaints of fever, pain in abdomen and cough with expectoration. Once the patient was admitted, there could have been no justifiable reason for hurry and the discharge of the patient on the same night appears to be quite unjustified. In these circumstances, the Commission comes to the irresistible conclusion that patient Ravinder was not given the attention and care that he ought to have received in the hospital. Discharge of the patient on the same night appears to have resulted in his untimely death.” 6.173 The Commission therefore, recommended that the Government of NCT of Delhi to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 as monetary relief to the next of kin of the deceased Ravinder. The compliance report is awaited. 40. Death of Venugopalan Nair in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, due to Denial of Medical Treatment (Case No. 95/11/1999-2000) 6.174 The Commission received a complaint dated 22 April 1999 from Smt. S. Radhamma alleging that her husband Venugopalan Nair had died due to denial of medical treatment by the 64 National Human Rights Commission