Consumer Protection Act Can't Be 'Halter Around Neck' Of Doctors Making Them Apprehensive Of Taking Professional Decisions At Crucial Moments: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has observed that the Consumer Protection Act ought not to be used as a 'halter around the neck' of doctors making them apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments. The Presiding Member Dr. S.M. Kantikar was considering a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the doctors of Max Super Specialty Hospital, Delhi, and seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20.33 Crores. The Commission relied upon various precedents C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) v. S. Ramanujam; Chanda Rani Akhouri v. M.S.Methusethupathi Mithupathi; Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors., and other such cases to emphasize that a doctor would not be held liable for negligence if his diagnosis is different from other fellow doctor or he treats patient from other method and taking any higher element of risk, or simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another."The Consumer Protection Act should not be a “halter round the neck” of the doctors to make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments to explore possibility of reviving patients hanging between life and death," the Commission said.Brief Facts The complainant had consulted the 2nd Opposite Party, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (OP-2), at the Max Super Specialty Hospital, Delhi (1st Opposite Party/ OP-1) for fever, fatigue, and blood spots/bruises on both his arms and legs. It is also noted that he had vomited with blood clot. A few lab investigations had been prescribed by Dr. Kumar (OP-2), and after asking the patient about his Insurance cover, it was alleged that the former had advised him to get admitted immediately through emergency and that he would visit from 8-8.30 PM. Subsequently, the patient was provisionally diagnosed with Viral Hemorrhagic Fever (VHF). The platelet count was found critically low, and there were other factors as well that were indicative of hemolytic anemia, which was later reconfirmed by the doctors.It was alleged that although the patient had been admitted in Medicine Department, and his primary consultant was OP-2, but having diagnosed as blood disorder, he should have immediately transferred to Hematology Department. It was alleged that OP-2 had intentionally kept the patient under medicine in order to raise the hospital bills, and that the doctors at the hospital had been playing with his life. It was alleged that even though the patient had suffered an episode of passing blood in stool, no Gastroenterologist (GI) saw him until later. When the patient had suffered seizures, and became critical, he was kept in ICU, and the Neurologist came to examine him only after an hour. Additionally, it was alleged by the complainant patient that during his 29 days of hospitalization, the Hematologist (OP-3) had only made 8 scattered visits and was absent from the critical stages of diagnosis and treatment, although the billing was done for 39 visits.It was further alleged that the hospital did not provide treatment summary despite repeated requests, because of which his wife was unable to get any second opinion. The treatment records were also alleged to have been fabricated by the opposite parties. It was averred that the complainant had consulted several doctors about his treatment later, and they had adversely commented upon the correctness of final diagnosis of Thrombocytopenic Thrombotic Purpura (TTP) and the delayed treatment. He further alleged that the opposite parties had indulged in billing malpractices, double billing for doctor’s visits, and billing for tests which were not done. He had approached several government authorities in this regard, but the opposite parties had not co-operated with the authorities, it was said. The Directorate General of Health Service (DGHS) mentioned in its report that the hospital and doctors were found to have indulged in unethical practices, but the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) passed a non-speaking Order on medical negligence, which was challenged by the complainant in Appeal before the MCI. It is the complainant's case that the records which were thereafter produced by the hospital were different from that placed before the Govt. authorities, and fabrication and manipulation could thus not be ruled out. It was submitted that the Opposite Parties had also failed to make differential diagnosis of TTP. It was averred that although there was no family history of TTP, the doctors informed about the risk of inheritance to their children, due to which he and his wife suffered severe mental anguish and trauma. The main allegation was that there was a failure to detect presence of Schistocytes in Peripheral Blood Smear (PBS), which resulted in delayed diagnosis of MAHA and its treatment. It was contended that although OP-4, a doctor in Hematology Department,...

Consumer Protection Act Can't Be 'Halter Around Neck' Of Doctors Making Them Apprehensive Of Taking Professional Decisions At Crucial Moments: NCDRC

Navya Benny

Tags