Patient slapped compensation for dragging Psychiatrist to consumer court with malicious complaint
Patient ordered to compensate Psychiatrist for filing malicious complaint alleging violation of doctor-patient confidentiality
Palakkad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Palakkad recently dismissed a consumer complaint against a psychiatrist, accused of violating doctor-patient confidentiality.
Further, the District Consumer Court has slapped a compensation of Rs 25,000 on the complainant (patient) and directed her to pay the amount to the concerned doctor for filing a malicious complaint.
"Therefore we impose a compensation of Rs.25,000/- payable by the complainant to the OP and a cost of Rs.15,000/- payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the compensation and cost are not paid within 45 days as above the OP shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs.500/- per month or part thereof till the date of final payment," ordered the consumer court.
The complainant patient approached the consumer court as she was aggrieved by the issuance of a certificate by the concerned doctor to her husband.
In the concerned certificate, it was stated that the complainant had been suffering from depression disorder with psychotic features. This certificate was produced by the estranged husband of the complainant in the Family Court, Palakkad.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed the consumer complaint and alleged that such issuance of the certificate constituted a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and further fabrication of documents.
On the other hand, the concerned doctor submitted that the complainant had been suffering from depression and she had been the doctor's patient. Referring to the certificate in question, the doctor submitted that it was issued to the complainant's husband in good faith, without knowing that the relation has gone south. With this contention, the complainant sought dismissal of the complaint.
After perusing the copy of the true photocopy of the certificates dated 11.08.2021, the Commission noted that the concerned document is a copy of a 'True Copy' issued from the Family Court, Palakkad. "So we are unable to understand why the complainant states that she merely apprehends production before Family Court when the document was availed by filing a copy application before the Family Court, Palakkad," observed the consumer court.
"Since the complainant herself has availed the document from the Family Court, Palakkad, we can reasonably say that the contention raised by the opposite party that she had made the certificate for handing over to the husband of the complainant is probable. The complainant has no case that she had informed the opposite party not to divulge the details of her condition to the husband. Her sole claim is that she was not suffering from any adverse psychological problem," further noted the consumer court.
Further, the Commission observed,
"Since the complainant has no case that she had directed the OP not to hand over a certificate to her husband we find that the opposite party cannot be found to be at fault. We do not find any situation whereby the opposite party could reasonable apprehend that the relationship between the complainant and her husband was so strained."
Therefore, the Commission held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the doctor in handing over the certificate to the complainant's husband.
The consumer court further opined that the Complainant failed to prove that the concerned doctor was aware of the patient's strained relation with her husband.
Holding that there was no illegality or irregularity or violation of any norms when the doctor handed over the certificate to the complainant's husband, the Commission further noted, "In our society when a spouse approaches a doctor for getting the details of the other spouses details the normal reaction of any person would be to come to a conclusion that they are in a harmonious relation. We find that the opposite party was not any different. The complainant has failed to prove any contra situation that would make the OP suspicious of the motivations of the complainant’s husband."
To determine whether the complainant in reality was suffering from depression, the Commission took note of the certificate that the complainant produced to prove that she was in good mental health. This certificate in question was issued by a consultant psychiatrist and it showed that the complainant was 'having marital disharmony. "The further observation is that the complainant had an adjustment disorder, took sertraline 5 months. Got better about 8 months back," mentioned the certificate.
The Commission noted that sertraline is a medicine used for management of depressive disorders. It further observed that the complainant got better around 8 months ago, in February 2021 when she was undergoing treatment under the treating doctor, who has been accused in the complaint.
"Thus we find that the complainant had full knowledge that she was undergoing psychological disorders and was under the treatment of OP doctor. The pleadings in this complaint therefore would be nothing short of malicious and vexatious made willfully to harass a doctor for no fault of hers," the Commission observed at this outset.
After opining that the complainant filed a false and vexatious complaint, the Commission ordered that
"...we are left with no teeth to penalize the complainant under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act of 2019. Such an absence of a penalizing or compensating clause would only benefit the likes of the complainant who can, without any care or concern for the harm such a pleading might cause unjustly. But justice and equity calls for compensating an O.P. who was falsely accused and dragged into a dispute. Therefore we impose a compensation of Rs.25,000/- payable by the complainant to the OP and a cost of Rs.15,000/- payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/palakkad-consumer-court-229445.pdf
