Allopathy doctor prescribes ayurvedic medicine, consumer court slaps compensation
compensation
New Delhi: Holding an allopathic doctor negligent for prescribing Ayurvedic Medicine, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), South II, recently directed him to pay compensation to the father of a minor patient, who died from fever, stomach pain, and respiratory distress.
"...OP-1 (the doctor) had prescribed Ayurvedic Medicine for which he was not qualified. Hence, we find OP-1 negligent to this extent," the consumer court observed in the order.
The history of the case goes back to 2010 when the complainant's son who was suffering from a low fever and pain in the abdomen, was taken to the treating hospital run by the treating doctor (OP-1) for treatment.
The treating doctors at the hospital diagnosed him with Dengue fever and conducted some tests. Allegedly, the complainant's son was not having a high-grade fever at the time of his admission to the hospital.
It was alleged that at around 10:00 PM, the patient suffered from stomach pain, and the on-duty doctor examined the patient and ordered the nurse to administer an injection. The condition worsened, and white froth started coming out of his mouth. Thereafter, the patient became unconscious. Following this, the on-duty doctor referred the patient to a nearby hospital.
When the complainant rushed his son to the nearby hospital's emergency department, a doctor stated that the complainant's son had expired about thirty minutes before.
The complainant alleged that even though the treating hospital is providing 24-hour emergency services, there were no ambulances or a ventilator. Allegedly, the complainant's son had died at the treating hospital, and the on-duty doctor had referred him to a higher centre to escape liability. Further, it was alleged that no prescription containing the details of the medicine administered to the patient was handed over. Later, the postmortem was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
It was alleged by the complainant that the name of the injection Hycort 100 mg was written on a page document which was handed over at the time of discharge. Hycort 100 mg is lifesaving drug and is given only in a very extreme condition. The Post Mortem Report allegedly showed about 500 cc of yellow fluid i.e. pus was found in the chest of the complainant’s son.
Further, the complainant blamed the treating doctors and hospital for failing to take any steps regarding raising the SGPT (Serum Glutamic pyruvic transaminase) in the blood test report. It was also alleged that no X-ray and ultrasound of abdomen was conducted to know the case of abdominal pain.
On the other hand, the treating doctor submitted that the viral-dengue fever was a provisional diagnosis as dengue fever was prevalent during October-November 2010. However, tests for dengue were not conducted because of the financial constraints of the patient.
It was stated that when the treating doctor examined the patient, the condition was not alarming. However, soon afterwards the he developed respiratory distress and the on-duty doctor directed the nurse to give an injection of a lifesaving steriod. It was also alleged that the attendants of the patient wanted to take him to another hospital for further treatment and they forcefully took away the patient.
The treating doctor alleged that he was manhandled by the attendants of the patient and police had to be called to control the unruly crowd. It was further submitted that steriods may be given to the patient when there is a complaint of respiratory distress and no consent of parents/attendants is required to be taken at the time of giving steriod treatment to the patient. Further, it was explained that a hypersensitivity test is never done on steroids.
Further, the doctor submitted that a provisional diagnosis of viral fever with secondary infection was the basis on which the patient was treated. A normal platelet count at initial stage does not ensure a persistent platelet count. The preliminary treatment was started with IV fluids and antibiotics (Injetion Cefoperazone and Sulbactum) and Antiviral hepatoprotective preparation (Syrup LIVFIT). Initial clinical examination and the preliminary basic laboratory test findings were the basis on which the treatment was started. It is submitted that period of 6 hours is not adequate time to diagnose a disease especially when treatment was started on symptoms.
A complaint in this regard was filed in the Delhi Medical Council against the treating doctor (OP-1), who is the proprietor of the treating hospital. The council found the doctor negligent and it was further observed that Livfit is an Ayurvedic drug and an allopathic doctor should refrain from prescribing such medicines.
Thereafter, an appeal was filed with the erstwhile Medical Council of India by the treating doctor and the Medical Council in its order dated 04.08.2020 exonerated the doctor from all charges of medical negligence levelled against him. Even though the complainant filed a writ in Delhi High Court against the MCI order, the Delhi HC in its order dated 25.07.2024 observed that the writ was being withdrawn by the complainant and the consumer complaint should be adjudicated on its own merits.
The consumer court, after perusing all the records, observed that the allopathic doctor had prescribed Ayurvedic Medicine for which he was not qualified. Holding the doctor negligent on this ground, the consumer court slapped Rs 5000 compensation on him.
It ordered, "Thus, it is evident that the doctor had a span of only 7 hours for assessment and treatment. Moreover, ultrasound could not be done as the cost factor was a constraint to the family. However, OP-1 had prescribed Ayurvedic Medicine for which he was not qualified. Hence, we find OP-1 negligent to this extent and direct OP-1 to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Order to be complied within 90 days failing which the said order will carry an interest @ 7% from the date of Order till realization."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/dcdrc-compensation-310820.pdf
