Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
the
relationship
between
doctor
and
patient
is
procedure and are ready for any treatment whatever doctor decides and as long as it is
free and cheap also.
18. The medical environment for poor and needy is very hostile as there is lack of
quality treatment and facility. Poor heart patients and cancer patients do have to wait
for months for diagnostics and many a times they even die before their turn comes.
What choice do these poor patients have? Any treatment of
whatever degree is a boon or a favour, for them. The stark reality is
that for a vast majority in the country, the concepts of informed
consent or any form of consent, and choice in treatment, have no
meaning or relevance. They are left with no option and hence the form of
consent and choice in treatment seems meaningless here.
The court also raised a question that against whom such negligence could
be attributed. The Court then stated that the Government Hospitals are
run by the State and the Medical Officers are duty bound to provide
medical assistance for preserving the human life. The relevant extract
from the judgement has been reproduced herewith for the sake of
reference:
20. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life,
which includes right to get meaningful health care, especially during
maternity/delivery period. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the
state to safeguard the right to life of every person. Hence The
Government hospitals run by the State and the Medical Officers
employed therein are duty bound to provide better medical facility
and preserve human life. Failure to do so results in the violation of
Article 21 and the offenders are liable to be punished..
21. The Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the approval of the
Central Government under Section 33 of the Indian Council Medical
Act and observed is as follows:"Every doctor whether at a Government Hospital or otherwise has
the professional obligation to extend his services for protecting life.
The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of
the Hospital and doctors in the District Forum which awarded the
compensation to the patient/complainant. The argument of the learned
counsel for the Opposition Party was that, the doctors conducted the
operation in a Government Hospital and therefore, they were not liable
under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commission citing the Honble Supreme Court judgement in Pravat
Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital and Ors. 1 stated that
services rendered by the Government Hospitals will fall under the ambit of
the Consumer Protection Act irrespective of the fact whether the receiver
was charged or not for those services. The relevant extract from the
judgement have been reproduced herewith for the sake of reference:
it has been observed by the court that government
hospital/healthcare
center/dispensary
etc
where
for
cough
only.
Subsequently
the
patient/complainant
OP-1
in
which
1/2
months
loss
of
menses
that
the
OP-1
was
aware
that
patient
had
With respect to OP-2, the Commission observed that there was an act of
omission on the part of OP-2 for not advising the USG of whole abdomen
as the USG of the entire abdomen could have detected the early
pregnancy. The relevant extract from the order have been reproduced
herewith for the sake of reference:
9.
It
is
appropriate
Gastroenterologist,
to
ought
note
that,
OP-2
being
to
have
instructed
USG
The relevant facts of the case are, one complainant named Mrs. Thomas
was admitted to Fathima Hospital and delivered a male child by caesarean
operation (LSCS). After the delivery, the new born acquired jaundice and
subsequently meningitis. The complainant made an allegation that, not
even a single nurse working in the hospital is qualified. It was also alleged
by the complainant that the baby acquired infection because of the lack of
cleanliness in the hospital.
The Commission after hearing the argument form both the sides held that,
as far as the question of infection to child is concerned hospital cannot be
held liable because there was no negligence on the part of the hospital.
However, the OP1 was held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice because of untrained nurses working in the hospital. The
Commission taking reference of a case stated that when a patient dies,
there is a tendency to put all the blame on the doctors since the things
have gone wrong so somebody should be held liable. The relevant extract
from the judgement has been reproduced herewith for the sake of
reference:
At the point when a patient meets the death bed or
endures some accident, there is a propensity to accuse the
specialist for this. Things have turned out badly and, along
these lines, someone must be punished for it. Be that as it
may, it is surely understood that even the best experts,
what to say of the normal expert, now and again have
sometimes failure. A legal counsellor can't win each case in
his expert profession however without a doubt he can't be
punished for losing a case gave he showed up in it and
made his submission.
In the instant case the cause of meningitis was not due to hospital
infection
With respect to the question of the untrained staff, the Commission found
that, the proprietor of the Fatima Hospital started the hospital without a
the
delivery
because
of
healing
facility
borne
But, in the
The court also relied on Section 29 which states that all records, charts,
forms, reports, consent letters and all other documents required to be
maintained under the Act and rules shall be preserved for a period of two
years.
The court further observed that the submission of incomplete records and
failure to mention the names of few patients in the register were serious
offences which hint at foul play. The legislation was passed with the intent
to ban the abhorrent practice of female foeticide and to end ban sex
selection and prevent the misuse of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques.
The legislation provides deterrent punishment to stop the inhuman
practice of female foeticide. The court held since the offence committed is
against society at large, the accused did not deserve leniency and also
would not be entitled to the benefits of section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act.
Taking into consideration the fact that the accused had not committed the
offence of sex selection, simple imprisonment for a term one year each
along with a fine of Rs. 5000 each was awarded to the accused for
contravention of sections 4(3), 5(1) and 29 read with rules 9 (4) and 9 (8)
and respectively. He was also sentenced to simple imprisonment of 3
months and a fine of Rs. 1000 due to contravention of rule 18 (v) (ix)
under section 25. The court directed that the terms are to run
concurrently. The relevant extracts from the order have been reproduced
herewith for the sake of reference:
The offence committed by accused is against society at large.
Hence the accused is not entitled to receive the benefit of section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
85) Here, I would like to state that, while deciding Point No. (h) I find
that, in Form F of though accused signed it however, he has not
put
his
Name,
Registration
number.
This
is
minor
is
gone
with
to
banning
utilization
of
both
sex
perspective
to
guarantee
their
investigative
In this case the accused was a doctor and was convicted doctor
guilty who was imprisoned and upon whom a fine was imposed for
not filing the forms properly under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)
The case of the petitioner was that the respondents were directly
negligent and were the proximate cause for losing the fingers of the
petitioner. The facts of the case are that certain fluids were injected to the
petitioner to cure an attack of convulsion. In the following days swelling,
discolorations, blackening in the fingers were observed. Gangrene was
developed by the petitioner for which his fingers were amputated. It was
the case of the petitioner that the amputation is result of the negligence
on the parts of the doctors and staff that were treating him.
Referring
to
Municipal
Corporation
of
Delhi,
Delhi v. Uphaar
nurses to see that the medicines were not administered intraveins and the
long delay between when the gangrene was noticed and its treatment.
The court rejected the contention of the respondents that it was difficult
for them to give personalized attention to all the patients in the hospital
considering their sheer volume in the municipal hospital. The duty of care,
according
to
the
court
was
greater
especially
when
the
drugs
Regarding consent form as well, the court held that it was not properly
filled because while the form was in English, the signature of the patients
father was in Marathi. Moreover it did not have signature of the witnesses
to
show
that
the
consequences
of
the
operation
were
properly
of
the
respondents
to
allow
this
to
happen.
it was very much strange situation that when public visiting hours
in the hospital are restricted and duty to take care of the patient is
that of the employees of respondents how they can ask the
relatives to look after the patient. In any event that would not
lessen the duty of the doctors and nurses treating the patient. It is
the duty of the hospital authorities to provide proper care and
attention to the patient when he is admitted in the hospital. We find
the conduct of the doctors and the nurses to be outrageous. It also
shocks the conscience of the court. There has been wanton
disregard on the part of the doctors, the nurses and the
respondents. If the doctors and the nurses had any regard for the
patient, they would have, particularly when they are aware that the
drugs that were administered may have the effect of causing
gangrene if it did not go properly into the vein, taken proper care
and not been negligent. Moreover, there was some problem in the
hand was noticed more than 24 hours later. All this leads to only
one conclusion -gross negligence and wanton disregard towards the
patient by the doctors and the nurses and the patient is a helpless
victim
Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor, the court held that it was for the
respondents to prove the absence of any negligence and due care and
attention on its part, in which it has failed. Since the doctors and the
nurses who were held liable were working in public hospital, the vicarious
liability of the State was attached to their negligence. Hence the court
held that there was gross negligence and wanton disregard on the part of
the respondents due to which the petitioner lost his fingers and has
violated his fundamental rights. The Court also stated that the quantum of
damages shall be determined on particular facts and circumstances of the
case. The relevant extract from the judgment has been reproduced
herewith: