No Medical Negligence in treating Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Consumer Court Exonerates KIMS Hospital, Doctors

The Commission further noted that the allegations made by the Complainant were "vague" and the hospital, the doctors including Physician, Urologist and Nephrologist as well as the staff nurses of the hospital had "provided a best treatment up-to their knowledge and during her hospitalization she was responding to the treatment."

The case goes back to 2010, when the wife of the Complainant got admitted to KIMS Hospital and Research Centre with complaints of uneasiness and restlessness. One month before the hospitalization, the patient had developed swelling of lower limbs, fever and chills, for which she was under medication. In fact, the patient was earlier diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) back in 2008. However, later her Kidney was found to be functioning normally.

Also Read: Stent of Stunt? Doctor slapped Rs 10 lakh compensation for false angio report, failure to treat CAD

The treating doctor at KIMS, examined the patient and prescribed some medicines. At that time, the creatinine level was 1.1 mg per deciliter and the same continued rising after the initiation of the treatment. The Complainant alleged that this resulted from the lack of monitoring, and due care of the patient from the time of admission. The treating physician and nephrologists also didn't visit the patient, alleged the Complainant.

Further, he claimed that during the hospitalization of the patient, the other staff nurses of the hospital negligently continued medication even though those medicines were never prescribed by any of the doctors. He alleged that the case sheet of the patient showed names of injections re-written or overwritten or scratched off as well.

It was also submitted by the Complainant that even though the patient was never diagnosed with TB the treatment chart mentioned Anti TB medication from the first day of admission. Thus, there was certainly negligence in the treatment of the patient, alleged the complainant.

It was added that when the Complainant filed an RTI application and sought for information with respect to medical records and the course of treatment, the hospital authorities failed to provide the same and gave false information to the queries. Besides, even though the RTI reply mentioned that signatures and permission was obtained for surgeries, no one of the family of the deceased signed the consent form.

The complainant further submitted that the doctors at the treating hospital operated on the patient four times for the purpose of implanting D J Stent and at the time of the 4^th surgery, the stent was not fixed properly and as a result the patient had to undergo dialysis and the doctors and staff failed to manage kidney problems of the patient during her hospitalization. Consequently, the health condition of the patient deteriorated and in spite of transfusion of blood on four times, finally, she died.

Bringing in another allegation against the treating hospital, the Complainant submitted that during the hospitalization period, he had requested the treating Urologist to discharge the patient as her health condition was deteriorating. However, the patient was not discharged and finally when she was discharged, the Complainant took her to the Institute of Nephro-Urology, where she was diagnosed that she was suffering from "Post SLE Nephritis with ARF with Obstructive Uropathy".

As the DJ Stent was not inserted properly, the patient had to undergo surgery at the second hospital under short G.A. B/L percutaneous nephrostomy tubes removed, she was managed for her renal failure with thrice-weekly hemodialysis. However, after a few days of her discharge, the patient suffered Breathlessness, cough, and infection at the site of surgery conducted at the first hospital and ultimately she died.

Thus, approaching the State Commission, the Complainant sought relief and asked for a compensation of Rs 95, 00,000 along with interest, considering the remaining service years of the deceased who was an earning member of the family.

On the other hand, the staff of the hospital claimed that the Complainant, who is the husband of the deceased, was not even present at the time of admission or during the course of treatment of the patient. The patient was admitted by her parents and the patient had informed the hospital that the husband had abandoned the relationship and they were not in talking terms. They claimed that the Complainant had come up with the claim of compensation in order to gain wrongfully.

The hospital authorities further contended that the patient had history of systemic Lupus Erythematosus and was already undergoing treatment by steroids. She had a long-standing Bilateral Gross Hydronephrosis (water inside the kidney) with thinning of the Renal Parenchyma. The patient was already being treated for tuberculosis with antituberculas treatment since 08.08.2010.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus is a systemic autoimmune disease more often occurring in women, wherein the immune system attacks the body cells and tissue, resulting in inflammation and tissue damage. It is a type III hypersensitivity reaction in which antibody immune complexes precipitate and causes a further immune response. It harms the heart, joints, skin, lungs, blood vessels, liver, kidneys and nervous system.

Mentioning that the course of treatment for SLE is unpredictable, the hospital further submitted that there is no cure for systemic Lupus Erythematosus, it can be treated and contained to a certain extent.

After diagnosing the patient, the treating doctor informed the patient that she would have to undergo Cystoscopy & Retrograde Pyclogram & Double JJ Stenting. Further it was informed to the patient if technically not possible a bilateral percutaneous Nephrostomy would be performed.

It was further submitted on the behalf of the hospital that when the treating Urologist inquired about the husband of the patient for consent, she informed that her husband had deserted her and she signed the consent forms herself.

The hospital authorities further informed the Commission that the patient was given best possible care and at the time of discharge, the stents implanted were draining normally and there was no urine leakage and she was responding positively to the treatment.

The patient was a diabetic and was suffering from advanced stage of kidney disease and had Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. They treated her with best medical practice and procedures and stabilized during her hospitalization, submitted the hospital.

After listening to these contentions, the Commission noted that the Complainant had not made any specific allegations with respect to any of the treating doctors and "He has simply made vague allegations against Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 18 for medical negligence without any specific negligence on the part of Opposite Party."

After perusing the medical record as submitted by the hospital, the Commission noted that they have clearly established that they have provided a best treatment up-to their knowledge and during her hospitalization she was responding to the treatment.

"We found there is no medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 18 in treating the wife of the complainant. In the absence of any specific allegations and establishment of medical negligence, the complainant is not justifiable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed," mentioned the order.

To read the order, click on the link below.

Also Read: Consumer Court upholds Medical Council observation, absolves Fortis Hospital, 2 Cardiac Surgeons of Negligence