Homeopath Poses as Gynaecologist, prescribes allopathic medicines: Consumer Court Slaps Rs 30 Lakh Compensation for medical negligence

Lucknow: Holding medical negligence, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Lucknow recently directed a city-based private nursing home and a homeopathy practitioner to pay Rs 30 lakh as compensation to a man whose pregnant wife died while giving birth to a child at the facility.

While considering the complaint by the man, the State consumer court noted that the concerned Homeopath had misrepresented herself claiming to be a Gynaecologist and prescribed allopathic medicine.

"Now it is clear that there is total lack of medical protocol in the treatment of the patient and the opposite party knowingly deputed herself as a gynaecologist and she advised allopathic medicines. If the complainant would have known that she is not registered Gynaecologist she would not have come to her nursing home for delivery. So it is a clear case of medical negligence and deficiency in service," the consumer court bench observed in its order.

"The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay ₹ 25 lakhs to the complainant in relation to medical negligence and deficiency in service, with interest at a rate of 12% from16.01.2014 (the date of death of the patient) if paid within 30 days from the judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% from 16.01.2014 till the date of actual payment," ordered the Commission.

"The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay ₹ 5 lakhs to the complainant with interest at a rate of 12% from16.01.2014 (the date of death of the patient) if paid within 30 days from the judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% from 16.01.2014 till the date of actual payment," it further mentioned in the order, granting an additional Rs 20,000 to the complainant as legal cost.

The matter goes back to 2014 when the complainant's wife was pregnant and got admitted to the treating facility Sri Mankameshwar Nursing Home and the treating practitioner at the facility allegedly told the complainant that she was a gynaecologist and specialist in gynaecology. The next day, the patient gave birth to a female child through normal delivery and the practitioner allegedly assured the complainant that both the patient and the child were fine.

However, later the patient's condition worsened and the complainant was asked to arrange blood. Soon afterwards, the complainant was informed that the patient had passed away.

It came as a shock to the complainant when he got to know that the treating practitioner had a degree in Homeopathic Medicine but she was prescribing allopathic medicines and treated the patient through allopathy. 

The complainant alleged that the practitioner had no right to prescribe any allopathic medicines. Further claiming that his wife had died due to excess bleeding and the Homeopathic doctor could not take care of the patient properly, the complainant lodged an FIR at Hasanganj police station, Lucknow. The complainant also approached the Medical Council and filed a complaint. Following this, the Council constituted a Medical Board to investigate the matter. 

After an inquiry, the Medical Board submitted its report in which it was stated that the practitioner had homeopathy degree but she was practising in allopathic medicine and this action on the part of the doctor was medical negligence.

Later, the complainant approached the Consumer Court and demanded Rs 45 lakh as compensation from the nursing home and the practitioner for causing mental agony and economic harassment to the complainant.

On the other hand, the practitioner and nursing home denied having claimed that she was a gynaecologist and specialist in gynaecology. It was submitted that the patient was not fit after the delivery and was bleeding and the same could be seen in the delivery note of the treatment chart. They claimed that the complainant was intimated about the condition of the patient i.e. postpartum haemorrhage and the emergency.

Although they did not deny that the treating doctor was a BHMS graduate, they vehemently opposed the claim that the practitioner prescribed any allopathic medicines to the patient. Further, they submitted that the patient was treated by the husband of the practitioner. He was a co-owner of the facility and has an MBBS and MD degree. Therefore, he was qualified and authorised to treat the patient by prescribing allopathic medicines.

They claimed that the patient expired due to excessive bleeding and the practitioner neither committed any medical negligence in the treatment nor showed any deficiency of service. Allegedly, the FIR was lodged after a month mentioning the wrong facts only to harass them and extort money.

While considering the matter, the consumer court referred to the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court and NCDRC and noted that there was a total lack of medical protocol in the treatment of the patient and the practitioner knowingly deputed herself as a gynaecologist and she advised allopathic medicines.

Further, the Commission referred to the Clinical Notes and noted, "Profuse bleeding was there and patient was in shock. It clearly means that the condition of the patient has become very critical and in spite of it she was not shifted to ICU."

Noting that the patient was declared dead only a few hours after informing the attendant to arrange blood, the Commission observed,

"It shows that there was total lack of post delivery treatment in which the opposite parties totally failed to discharge their duties. They were negligent in not providing the supportive medical care as per medical protocol to the patient. There is no ultrasound report on the record which can show the internal condition of the uterus and placenta."

Referring to the Medical Literature in respect of postpartum haemorrhage, the Commission further noted, "No investigation was done regarding this aspect. One can know this condition if there is heavy bleeding from the vagina that does not slow or stop, drop in blood pressure or signs of shock. Signs of low blood pressure and shock include blurry vision; having they said, clammy skin or really fast heartbeat; feeling confused, DC, sleepy or weak; or feeling like you are going to faint. Nausea, pale skin and swelling and pain around the vagina or perineum. The perineum is the area between the vagina and rectum. There are so many other conditions by which one can know about PPH. There is provision for testing of PPH and also for the treatment of PPH. In this case the opposite party did not bother to confirm the PPH at the very beginning because they did not take any sonography picture of the patient."

Therefore, the State Consumer Court opined that the treating practitioner misrepresented the patient by showing herself as a gynaecologist and failed to take proper medical care of the patient. 

"They completely failed to provide medical facilities after the delivery. They failed to recognise PPH at the relevant time by which this incident happened. The blood should have been arranged in the very beginning and not at the 11th hour. It was duty of the opposite parties to inform the patient’s attendant in time about the need of any blood or any other medicines which may be necessary in the treatment of the patient but they have taken it very lightly. So there is medical negligence and the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies in this case," noted the Commission.

After going through the circumstances and inquiry report and the judgment of the Supreme Court and NCDRC, the consumer court bench granted the following reliefs:

"(i) The complainant is entitled to get ₹ 25 lakhs from the opposite parties with interest.

(ii) The complaint is entitled to get ₹ 5 lakhs for mental pain and agony.

(iii) The complainant is entitled to get ₹ 20,000 towards cost of the case."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/lucknow-scdrc-234660.pdf

Also Read: Delay in C-Section results in death of patient, newborn: Hospital, Doctors directed to pay Rs 43 lakh compensation