No Doctor can promise cure to all Problems, says Consumer Court while absolving doctors of medical negligence charges

While considering the complaint, where it had been alleged that the patient had been shifted from a hospital on the basis of the assurance of cure given by the treating doctors, the State Commission recently noted, "No doctor can promise that they will cure all the problems. It is only the duty of care and commitment that they can exercise towards the patient. The Forum has greatly emphasized this assurance given by the opposite parties but have not relied on any documentary evidence to sustain this."

"It is the endeavour of every doctor/hospital to provide the best care to their patients. It is with this belief that patients go to hospitals, however this cannot be basis of the complaint," further observed the Commission.

Also Read: Complications are Inherent in any Surgical Procedure: Consumer Court exonerates orthopaedic specialist of Implant Failure

Back in 2012, the father of the complainant consulted the treating doctors at a Lakdikapool-based hospital with complaints of SOB, drowsiness, decreased urine output, and a diagnosis of Cirrhosis of Liver and decomposition with Ascities with left leg cellulites with sepsis with respiratory and renal failure.

The complainant alleged that the treating doctor assured him that the patient would be cured and based on the assurance, they shifted the patient from another hospital where the patient was already undergoing treatment. Although the complainant deposited a substantial amount of money in the hospital, the patient died the next day after being admitted.

It has been submitted before the commission that the cause of death has been mentioned as 'Cardio Pulmonary Arrest'. The complainant alleged that in a short span of 17 hours, the treating doctors administered 24 injections and used various medicines worth Rs 1,26,096 and claimed that the doctors and the hospital gained illegally and even when the patient was at the end stage the bill was astronomical.

Further referring to the gross deficiency in service by the doctors, the monetary loss and the pain suffered by the complainant, he claimed a compensation of Rs 10 lakh along with the refund of Rs 1,97,654, the amount spent in the hospital.

The treating doctors, however contended that before admitting the patient, they had explained all the possible risks and complications and they also denied of giving any kind of assurance to the complainant. They further argued that the patient had been given appropriate treatment and there was no breach of duty on their part.

They also alleged that the complaint was made with mala fide intentions only to extract money from them and thus, they sought the dismissal of the complaint.

When the complaint was moved before the District Forum, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the treating doctors to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 50,000 each) to the complainant within a period of 45 days.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, both the parties approached the State Commission and filed a complaint. On the one hand, the complainant claimed that before deciding on the amount of compensation, the District Forum failed to understand the concept of Doctor-Patient Relationship, the assurance given by the doctors etc. and sought an enhancement of the amount of compensation.

On the other hand, the doctors contended that the District Forum failed to take into account that the patient was very critical and the complainant had shifted the patient voluntarily. In fact, the doctors at the first hospital had allegedly informed the complainant that the condition of the patient was very critical and he may collapse at any time.

The State Commission noted that in support of their claim, the complainant has referred to the fact that the patient was on Ventilator support and his condition was very critical. The complainant had also referred to the alleged assurance given by the treating doctors, based on which he had shifted his late father.

Apart from this, the commission also noted that emphasis was given to the non-issuance of medical records, shifting of a patient under ventilator support and treating the patient with a heavy dose of injections and making an exorbitant bill.

Taking note of all these things, the Commission opined that "It is necessary to distinguish fact from fiction."

Observing that it was not that the treating doctors had come to the first hospital and forcibly shifted the patient and noted,

"For nonproduction of the Case sheet and medical records, the complainant and his counsel should have perused the matter in the lower Forum itself. If it was so important then they could have been more insistent and vigilant at the inception itself."

Mentioning that shifting the patient from the first hospital was voluntarily taken by the complainant himself, the State Commission further opined,

"No doctor can promise that they will cure all the problems. It is only the duty of care and commitment that they can exercise towards the patient. The Forum has greatly emphasized this assurance given by the opposite parties but have not relied on any documentary evidence to sustain this."

"It is the endeavour of every doctor/hospital to provide the best care to their patients. It is with this belief that patients go to hospitals, however this cannot be basis of the complaint," further observed the Commission.

Further clarifying that only when the conduct of a doctor falls below the standard of competence, it can be termed as negligence, the State Consumer Court mentioned, "The complainant has made very loud accusations against the opposite parties doctors stating that the promise made by them is unfair. The opposite parties have never promised the complainant that they will save the life of the deceased. They can only provide the treatment and try their level best. As long as the doctors perform their duties and exercise a degree of professional skill and competence they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence and the Forum has expressed this appreciating the material on record."

"Blaming the doctors unjustly could have been avoided especially when the patient was in a critical condition," noted the Consumer court.

Further referring to the contention of the complainant that the treating doctors had made unnecessary expenses even though the patient was at the ending state, the Commission opined that the money was given to the Hospital and the Hospital was not made a party in the complaint.

"The complainant has failed to substantiate his case by providing any expert evidence to contend that the treatment provided to the patient was unnecessary and unwarranted. The bills for all the amounts paid for are submitted by the Complainant and there is no justification in stating that the course administered was wrong or negligent," explained the Commission.

Thus the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, which had partially allowed the complaint and dismissed the same.

To read the order, click on the link below.