Treatment of Patient Based on Telephonic Advice from Doctor constitutes Negligence: NCDRC
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently opined that treating a patient on the basis of telephone advice of a doctor, instead of personally examining him, constitutes negligence in care.
Such observation was made by the Apex Consumer Court while it held a Ranchi-based private hospital and its doctors negligent while providing treatment to a patient suffering from Acute Pancreatitis.
The Apex Consumer Court noted that the treating doctors overlooked the patient's experience of acute abdominal pain and medical reports indicating the presence of large stones in the urinary bladder and ureter. Further, the Commission observed that even though the ultrasound report hinted at acute pancreatitis, no treatment was administered for this ailment.
Taking note of the fact that the patient was treated by one Dr. Nath on the advice of Dr. Mohan, who prescribed medications over the phone, the NCDRC bench opined that early detection of pancreatitis might have been possible if Dr. Mohan had personally examined the patient, when he was brought to the hospital.
"The patient's treatment was based on telephonic advice from OP-3, which constitutes another instance of negligence in treatment. The argument made by the OPs, asserting that Dr. Nath was a competent doctor, does not absolve the OPs, especially considering that Dr. J. Nath simply followed the directions provided by Dr. Mohan (OP-3) over the phone. If OP-3 had personally examined the patient earlier, there might have been a possibility of early detection of the complication of pancreatitis. In light of the discussions and findings outlined above, we are of the considered view that there was negligence and a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in providing treatment to the deceased patient...," observed the Apex Consumer Court.
The matter that goes back to 2003 when the complainant's son was admitted to the treating hospital due to abdominal pain and vomiting. Initially, the patient was treated by Dr. Nath on the advice of Dr Mohan, who prescribed medications over the phone. However, despite taking the prescribed medicines, the condition of the patient did not improve.
Allegedly, Dr. Mohan examined the patient the next day and advised an ultrasound. However, the doctor allegedly ignored a crucial part of the ultrasound report indicating "Ascites minimal plural effusion is present (Right)", which confirmed that the patient had Pancreatitis.
It was alleged by the complainant that despite this diagnosis, no treatment for Pancreatitis was administered and later that day, the patient was shifted to the ICCU due to acute pain, but life-saving medical care was still not provided. Ultimately, the patient passed away and the death certificate cited Acute Pancreatitis as the cause of death.
Although the District Commission allowed the complaint, the order was challenged by the doctors and the private hospital. While considering the matter, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Commission. This was again challenged by the complainants before the NCDRC bench.
It was argued by the counsel for the complainants that Dr. Nath admitted the deceased for the treatment of abdominal pain. However, the progress sheet clearly reflected that no physical examination was conducted and only medications were prescribed and the recommended tests were significantly delayed, taking over 13 hours post-admission.
Apart from these, the counsel for the complainants also alleged that there was not timely availability of reports to specialist doctors. Issues like the diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis by the hospital proprietor, admission of the patient without recording any initial medical history, delayed recommendation of tests, and allegation of the USG report not being reviewed properly were also highlighted.
Further, the counsel for the complainants emphasized on the two expert opinions, one by Dr. G.S. Vats and another one by Dr Samir Rai. On the other hand, the counsel for the hospital submitted that the patient's diagnosis of acute pancreatitis came after comprehensive tests and examinations and after identifying this condition, the medical staff acted promptly, confirming with affitional tests.
It was alleged that despite life-saving efforts, the condition of the patient deteriorated, ultimately leading to his demise. They further alleged that the medical records and the expert opinions did not indicate any departure from professional standards or a misalignment in the treatment plan. Therefore, they denied any negligence on their part.
While considering the matter, the top consumer court observed that since the filing of the complaint, the case has been dealt with by the district Forum twice, the State Commission thrice and the National Commission thrice.
Previously, the State Commission twice directed the doctors and the hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation. However, the matter was remanded back to the District Commission by NCDRC and in the 2016 order, the District Commission held the doctors and the hospital negligent and ordered Rs 10 lakh compensation. However, when this was again challenged before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and exonerated the doctors and the hospital.
As per the NCDRC bench, the doctors appeared to have not made adequate efforts to monitor the patient's deteriorating condition, even when the patient was in the ICU. The bench noted that the USG report revealed findings of ascites and minimal pleural effusion on the right side. However, these findings were not documented in the progress notes.
The consumer court further referred to the expert opinions provided by Dr Vats, who expressed that the presence of ascites and minimal pleural effusion strongly indicated the development of acute pancreatitis.
Referring to this, the bench noted,
"We consider the omission to acknowledge these findings as a clear instance of negligence in the patient's treatment on the part of the OPs. The argument presented by the OPs, suggesting that the initial treatment for ureteric colic and acute pancreatitis is the same, does not exonerate them from demonstrating the absence of negligence in their provision of treatment to the patient."
NCDRC also referred to the opinions expressed by the other expert Dr Rai, who indicated that the medical presentation strongly suggested acute pancreatitis and noted, "...yet this possibility was not considered, and the diagnosis was overlooked."
The bench also noted the evaluation of Dr Vats opining that the treating doctors did not adequately consider the possibility of acute pancreatitis. Dr. Vats also opined that the doctors should have immediately conducted crucial tests such as estimating the serum calcium level and a CT scan.
Among other issues, the top consumer court also noted that the treatment of the patient was based on telephonic advice from Dr. Mohan and opined it to be another instance of negligence in treatment.
In this regard, the bench observed, "The patient's treatment was based on telephonic advice from OP No.3, which further underscores negligence in care. The OPs' claim that Dr. J. Nath was competent doesn't absolve them from the responsibility, as he simply followed OP No.3's telephonic directions. Had OP No.3 personally examined the patient on March 6, 2003, early detection of pancreatitis might have been possible."
Therefore, holding the doctors and the hospital negligent, the Consumer Court set aside the order of the State Commission, which had exonerated the doctors and the hospital and noted,
"The State Commission failed to recognize that expert medical opinions obtained by the OPs did not align with the facts and records maintained by the hospital. These reports omitted crucial information regarding treatment after the pancreatitis diagnosis and did not address actions taken between 3:30 pm and 9:45 pm on 07.03.2003. In contrast, reports from Dr. G.S. Vats and Dr. Samir Rai, obtained by the complainants, were meticulously based on thorough reviews of the hospital's medical records. These reports challenged the accuracy of the patient's diagnosis and criticized the lack of proper treatment for the severity of his condition, given the ultrasound findings."
"We tend to agree with the findings of District Forum in its order dated 28.11.2016 that ultrasound report submitted by the complainant before the District Forum revealed ascites and minimal pleural effusion on the right side, which were crucial signs of acute pancreatitis. Regrettably, these findings were not recorded in the patient's progress notes, highlighting negligence on the part of the OPs. The OPs' argument that the initial treatment for both ureteric colic and acute pancreatitis is the same doesn't absolve them from negligence in care," noted the Commission.
With this observation, the top consumer court directed the doctors and the hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation with simple Interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 28.01.2017, along with litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- (including the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the District Forum) within 2 months.
To view the order, click on the link below:
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.