“The doctor is not treating any patient on the advise of the family member of that patient rather he is required to treat the patient according to requirement of the deceased and whatsoever medicine is required the same should be administrative to the patient not to give any medicine on the asking of the family member of the said patient.”
Jalandhar: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Jalandhar to pay compensation of Rs 8 lakh for providing treatment in a wrong line. The court rejected the claim of the doctor that he procured central line consumables on the behest of the husband of the patient but did not use them as the patient did not require it
The case concerns a resident of Kapurthala, who filed a complaint in the forum alleging PIMS for providing wrong treatment to his wife who was suffering from some ailment due to which she was admitted at the hospital on 08.02.2017. She was under the treatment of Dr. Singh of the medicine department and its Senior Staff Nurse.
On observing the seriousness of the ailment she was immediately shifted to ICU of the hospital on 08.02.2017. The complainant alleged that he was told that the patients veins could not be traced out and hence the doctors had to install the Centre Line in the body of the patient at ICU for the purpose of her treatment so that the doses of medicines could administer her body. The complainant gave his consent and purchased all the material necessary of central line, however, even till the next day the doctors did not install the central line which amounted to negligence
The complainant confirmed the same from the concerned doctor, but he started avoiding the complainant and kept on putting off the matter and assured the complainant that the treatment has been initiated upon his wife. The complainant requested the doctor and the nursing staff to install the centre lining on the body of the patient for the administration of the medicines but the opposite parties did not pay heed to it which proves the negligence of the PIMS and the professionals concerned towards the wife of the complainant.
Besides this the complainant also questioned the line of treatment. He alleged that when the requisite documents were in the hands of the complainant, he observed that the hospital provided the treatment of Type II Diabetic Mellitus, whereas the patient was actually suffering Hypothyroidism and Hypertension which was very much evident from Complicated Chronic Disease Certificate issued by Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Complex, Amritsar.
The patient provided certain recent reports of near that time which showed that her sugar/diabetes was NIL alleging that as such, it becomes crystal clear that wife of the complainant was never a patient of Diabetes and the OPs adopted and gave different line of treatment which was not required in the case of the complainant, which resulted in the death of the wife of the complainant
He added the patient was not a diabetic and due wrong line of treatment, no glucose was administered in the body of the patient, due to which the condition seemed to be deteriorating. Further the patient was admitted in the ICU immediately after admission in the hospital and Injection Doparium was given to the wife of the complainant to raise her B. P. inspite of the fact that she was a declared case of Hypertension, which shows the negligence and wrong line of treatment being given to the wife of the complainant.
The complainant alleged that due to non-processing of the Centre Line process and due to non-providing of necessary and requisite treatment and medicine and due to adopting wrong line of treatment on the patient, the wife of the complainant succumbed to her ailment and she was declared dead on 10.02.2017 at 06:20 AM. He claimed that the medicines purchased by the complainant were not used in the course of treatment, rather it was stored other the patient would never succumb to her ailment had the proper treatment been given to her.
The doctors and the hospital on their part denied negligence. On the issue of Central Line, the doctor in his submission stated that the patient was admitted in the hospital in a very serious and critical condition and because of these seriousness condition of the patient, the wife of the complainant was admitted in the ICU not for the want of central line insertion. Even at the time of admission and afterwards, there was no need for the central line insertion, the medicines were being given to the patient intravenously, but on the request of the patient’s husband, the central line set was prescribed to the patient to be kept ready and further alleged that the line of the treatment given to the patient was ethical according to the disease.
The court however rejected the argument of the doctor stating that he is required to treat the patient according to the requirement of the patient and no according to the advice of the family member
We have considered the above submission of both the counsel for the parties and find that the doctor is not treating any patient on the advise of the family member of that patient rather he is required to treat the patient according to requirement of the deceased and whatsoever medicine is required the same should be administrative to the patient not to give any medicine on the asking of the family member of the said patient. So, by applying the aforesaid observation, the version took by OP that the set of the central line was prescribed on the asking of the husband of the complainant, is not acceptable version of the OP rather it gave impression that the OPs had negligently not inserted the central line for administrative of the medicine to the deceased Surinder Kaur and this is a clear cut negligence on the part of the OPs.
On the issue of the diabetes of the patient, the court took into consideration the lab reports of the patient showing that her sugar was NIL as well as the record of the treatment at the hospital which showed that she was treated for diabetes.
From the Report Ex.C-8 dated 08.02.2017 shows that the sugar of the wife of the complainant is ‘NIL’, similarly Reports Ex.C-23 and Ex.OP-14 also shows that the sugar of the wife of the complainant is ‘NIL’, but to the contrary, the treatment given by the OP as per documents of the OP i.e. Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 itself established that the treatment of the diabetes was given to the wife of the complainant and if the said treatment had been given, then obviously no glucose was administrative in the body of the wife of the complainant, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint and due to deficiency of glucose, some problems might be occurred to the deceased Smt. Surinder Kaur. So, these things shows that the OPs adopted and gave different type of treatment, which was not required. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that there is a deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1, 2 and 4, whereas the OP No.3 is a staff nurse, who has no direct role in regard to giving the treatment to any patient, the staff nurse is only for helping the doctor.
The court holding the negligence directed the hospital and the doctor to jointly pay Rs.8,00,000 jointly for medical negligence towards the patient as well as harassment to the complainant, mentally and physically. They were further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.