Cancer patient allegedly administered wrong drug: Pune hospital, doctor, nurse directed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation

The complainant submitted that her mother, who was a beneficiary of Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme by virtue of her late husband being an army officer, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in May 2004 and underwent chemotherapy for six cycles. She suffered a relapse in February 2006 and the treatment was again started with the same medicines for a 21 days cycle.

As alleged, when she went for 4 cycles, the doctor of the Hospital mentioned on her case sheet 'same the protocol as on February 17, 2006'. They alleged that instead of the prescribed drug Carboplatin, the ward in-charge asked for the supply of Cisplatin. A junior nurse, who was given the responsibility to administer the drug also did not pay any attention that a wrong drug was allegedly being administered. Due to the wrong injection, the patient suffered extreme uneasiness and severe pain. Subsequently, the patient died later due to multiple organ failure.

It was alleged that the dead body of the patient was given to the family of the deceased only after taking an undertaking that they would not initiate any criminal proceedings against the hospital and the doctors. An internal investigation was conducted in the matter but they were kept away from those proceedings, the complainants alleged, adding that they were not provided the medical documents of the deceased despite several efforts.

Consequently, an application was filed under the RTI Act in this regard. The complainants alleged medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctors and negligence in injecting wrong chemotherapy medicine, due to which the precious life of their mother had been lost, the complainants filed this complaint.

The counsel for the petitioner contended, " The doctor, in his statement has clearly stated that the Nurse was not a trained Nurse for cancer treatment and this was a clear deficiency on the part of the hospital."

He further added that even when the severe symptoms were noticed by the doctor, the nephrologist was not called. However, when he was called, by that time, it was too late and the patient was already put on a ventilator.

Responding to the allegations, the complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. They filed a written statement and argued that medicine Cisplatin was mistakenly given by the Nurse in lieu of Carboplatin and the Army Court inquiry proceeded against the accused and appropriate punishment has already been given. The mistake was not deliberated and it was a bona-fide mistake, therefore, it cannot be considered as medical negligence.

Considering the submission of both the parties, the court observed, "The mother of the complainants was covered under Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme and that is why she was eligible for treatment in the hospital opposite party. We agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the doctor cannot be present always when a drug is administered to a patient and that too when the drug is being repeated."

The court further added," Medical record shows that on every visit of the doctor, there is a reference to nephrotoxicity due to Cisplatin and therefore when the condition of the patient did not improve, the reference should have been made to the nephrologist or at least initial blood tests for knowing the renal function may have been advised. Definitely, this can be an error of judgment on the part of the treating doctor."

Terming it as medical negligence, the court mentioned that the nephrologist would have made any difference because the condition of the patient was already precarious due to the main disease of relapse of ovarian cancer as indicated in the report of AIIMS.

Observing that "it is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence", the court stated, "the hospital cannot escape its liability for the medical negligence that has been meted out in the present case. Thus, we are of the view that the hospital is required to compensate for the medical negligence that has happened in the hospital."

Pronouncing its decision, the judges stated,

" It is important to note that the management of a hospital not only involves providing services of doctor or other staff but also to ensure that proper treatment is provided to the patient. In the present case, it has come on record that the Nurse was not a trained Nurse for Chemotherapy and this was definitely a deficiency on the part of the hospital. Moreover, a death has occurred in the hospital because of the administration of a wrong drug, therefore, the whole system of prescribing, providing, and administering the drug comes into question."

Finally, the Court issued an order asking the hospital, the doctor, and the nurse to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the complainant. The court held;

We find negligence on the part of opposite party No.4 doctor and opposite party No.5 ward incharge in the present case aggregating to the deficiency in service on the part of the hospital as well. We have also noted the precarious condition of the patient due to relapse and spread of cancer as well as non-applicability of any special consideration due to deceased being a homemaker. Keeping all the factors in view, we order a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid to the complainants by the opposite parties Nos.2,4 and 5. The opposite party No.2 hospital will pay a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- and opposite party No.4 doctor will pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- whereas the opposite party No.5 will pay a compensation of only Rs.1,00,000/- as she has already been appropriately punished in a Court of inquiry

To access the official judgment, click on the link below-

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-143313.pdf