HC notice to Doctor Accused of Medical Negligence, Practicing Without Valid Registration
Medical Negligence
Panaji: The Division bench of the High Court has issued notice to a doctor accused of medical negligence while performing laparoscopic appendectomy on a patient. When the complaint of medical negligence was filed against the doctor, he was reportedly not registered with the Goa Medical Council.
As per TOI report, the history of the case goes back to August 2023, when Dr. Teja performed the laparoscopic appendectomy on a patient, advocate Pinto, at Victor Hospital in Margao. It was alleged after undergoing the procedure, the patient had to face complications and seek further treatment at a Delhi-based hospital.
When the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee of the Goa Medical Council dismissed the medical negligence complaint against the doctor, the patient went to the High Court challenging the dismissal order.
As per the latest media report by the Times of India, the patient submitted before the High Court that the committee after conducting an inquiry dismissed his complaint despite the doctor not possessing a valid registration with the Goa Medical Council when the complaint was lodged.
Back in March 2024, the doctor was issued a notice for practising without a valid medical registration. At that time, he had informed that there was a delay because the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council had not issued an NOC to him, due to an ongoing strike in that State. The doctor had also assured to submit the same within 15 days.
He was advised to stop practising in Goa when he did not submit the NOC and only after submitting the same, he was given registration therefore he became allowed to practice from May 21, 2024 onwards.
TOI has reported that the doctor admitted to practising without registration for more than ten months and for this, the Medical Council's ethics committee imposed a Rs 10,000 penalty on him.
While the patient claimed that he had to undergo a repeat surgery at a Delhi hospital because of medical negligence, the Ethics Committee despite concluding that the patient suffered a major complication due to the surgery, exonerated the doctor and other doctors of charges of medical negligence.
However, the committee reprimanded the treating doctor for manipulating the patient's treatment papers and said that the words "fecoliths suctioned" were added as an afterthought. The Committee had also opined that manipulating a patient's papers was a serious offence.
Apart from this, the committee had also taken cognisance of the fact that no video recording of the surgery was available. "The availability of a video recording would have made the committee’s job simpler," stated the Committee, further adding that "Although it is not mandatory to have a video recording, it is always advisable to have video recordings of the laparoscopic surgeries."
