Human body is like a highly complex machine, doctor could not assure full recovery of patient: NCDRC absolves cardiologist, general physician, hospital
Delhi: Holding no deficiency of service on part of the hospital and doctors, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a complaint against a hospital and its doctors including a cardiologist and general physician accusing them of not admitting the patient ICU till the arrival of the Cardiologist or that Oxygen was not given and there was a delay in the treatment of the patient.
The complainant also alleged that proper injections were not administered to the patient. Dismissing the complaint, the apex commission referred to an apex court's observation and stated, "The court held that a professional might be held liable for negligence either if they do not possess the requisite skills that they claimed to have, or they don't exercise the skill which they have. While referring to the judgments, the court said that the human body is like a highly complex machine and a doctor could not assure full recovery of a patient."
The case concerns a patient who was taken to the hospital with complaints of vomiting in the year 2014. In her petition, the complainant (the patient's wife) submitted that the General Physician examined the patient in the casualty and kept him there for three hours. The hospital authorities collected Rs. 5,000/- at the time of admission. In the casualty, the patient again vomited and for the first time complained about breathlessness. The patient and his wife requested for Oxygen mask but the doctors did not pay attention, she alleged. The complainant then alleged that she and the other attendants were instructed by the physician to stay away from the casualty ward and therefore, they were observing the patient through a glass window from outside.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the doctor gave one injection to the patient upon which he immediately developed convulsions and cramps and he became unconscious. It was alleged that at 10.20 p.m, one assisting doctor came outside the casualty and informed that due to 70% of blockage of arteries of the heart, the patient became unconscious.
It was further submitted that the doctor demanded medicines worth Rs. 40,000/- and the Complainant paid the same on the spot. The Complainant repeatedly requested the hospital staff to call the Cardiologist but to no avail. At last, the patient was shifted to ICU, however, the patient expired on 19.06.2014. On inquiry, the hospital did not give a proper explanation for the cause of death of the patient.
The complainant alleged that the precious time was wasted in casualty for non-administration of initial injection, non-supply of the oxygen mask, and not shifting the patient to the ICU. It was further alleged that despite requests for the entire medical record, the hospital supplied only three documents. The Complainant also requested to provide CCTV Camera recording for 19.06.2014 but it was not provided. The petitioner stated that the doctors and the hospital treated the patient casually.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service during treatment of the patient and demanded Rs. 2,61,000/- as compensation.
The counsel for the hospital and the doctors denied all the allegations of medical negligence. They submitted that the Consumer Complaint has to be dismissed as it was frivolous and further stated that the patient and his wife at the time of admission suppressed that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for the last 20 years. It was further submitted that the patient was brought to the hospital with complaints of severe back pain and vomiting and proper medications were administered for nausea and vomiting.
The doctors also called the cardiologist. As the patient's relatives were creating unruly behaviour, therefore, they were asked to leave the casualty. As the patient developed severe breathlessness followed by respiratory arrest, Code Blue was announced and immediately, CPR was started with Ambuventilation. The Cardiologist came to the hospital and took control of the situation and the patient regained rhythm and the second ECG was taken which showed the patient had suffered a massive heart attack, the counsel submitted.
The patient was immediately intubated with ETT No. 8 and connected to a mechanical ventilator. The cardiac monitor showed ventricular fibrillation, therefore, 360 joules shock was given. The cardiac massage was also started; the patient was given Bolous dose of injection Adrenaline every three minutes. However recurrent ventricular fibrillation continued and showed cardiac asystole. Tenecteplase 40 mg IV bolus was given which was worth Rs. 40,000/- Thus under the supervision of the doctor (opposite part 2), the entire cardiology and critical care team treated the patient but the patient could not be revived and passed away. The cause of death was cardiogenic shock and acute extensive anterolateral STEMI and there was no negligence on part of the hospital or the doctor, the counsel for the doctors and the hospital further contended.
After giving careful consideration to the submissions of both the parties, the court refused to accept the submission of the petitioner that the patient was not admitted to ICU or that Oxygen was not given till the arrival of the Cardiologist as the records revealed that the Cardiology resident doctor was present on duty and was regularly briefing the relatives of the patient's status.
The commission stated,
" It should be borne in mind that we are dealing with a case of alleged medical negligence and thus need to analyze whether the treating doctors or hospital failed in their reasonable duty of care. The medical record of the Care Hospital is a vital document to prove the medical negligence if any."
" There was past medical history of diabetes and the ECGs were confirmatory of acute MI (STEMI). Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the patient developed cardiac problems during the nine months. We note that the doctors made all efforts to resuscitate the patient from the cardiac arrest but could not revive the patient. In our view, they performed their duty with a reasonable standard of care. We do not find any deficiency either from the hospital or the treating doctors."
Referring to another supreme court judgment the commission clarified
"The skill of medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. The nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence."
To view the order, click on the link below:
Next Story
