Consumer is King » Hospital

Apollo fined Rs. 5 lakh over a man’s death

ashish — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:20:02 +0000

Apollo Hospitals is one of the providers of premium medical care, charging top rates for their services and in turn providing excellent medical services. This is an expectation that people have when they are admitted to the hospital, so when the hospital screws up somewhere in this care and does harm to the patient, there is a lot of shock. And with an increasing tendency for people to file consumer forum issues when they believe that they have not been treated well, it is becoming more common for even the better hospitals to be pulled up when their services are found wanting (link to article):

The state consumer commission has directed Apollo Hospital to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the kin of a patient, who died in the hospital moments after he was brought in. In this case, 31-year-old Pradeep Kumar Saini, a father of two minor kids, was admitted in Apollo Hospital on June 16, 2003 in a drowsy state. After examination, it was found that he had no medical history and his condition was stable. In fact, the family was told that he was to be discharged shortly. At no stage was it indicated that the condition of the patient was deteriorating.
Presiding over the commission, Justice JD Kapoor said that Apollo Hospital was guilty of negligence and deficiency in service for keeping the patient unattended for few hours and not making doctors available for immediate treatment.

This is not a state run hospital where patients sometimes have to wait for doctors to attend to them because of a lot of rush; premium hospitals are supposed to provide the required medical attention as and when required, and their reputations are based on these.

Delhi hospital fined for improper diagnosis

ashish — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:36:36 +0000

Modern medical care can be very expensive. We have managed to push the boundaries of medical care much further in the recent years, and are able to diagnose diseases much better than just a couple of decades ago. As a part of this, we have much better equipment, much better diagnostic techniques, and a much higher level of specialization of the medical sciences. However, one direct result of this is that a lot of medical treatment has got more expensive; this is compounded by the fact that medical services are now increasingly privatized with the providing of medical services becoming a for-profit business. Along with these higher fees comes additional responsibility for these services, and also sees more patients hauling up these medical services for compensation if the treatment has not been correct:

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday directed Max Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs.150,000 to a patient for not properly diagnosing him as a result of which he had to be shifted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by Justice J.D. Kapoor observed that according to medical literature, sodium level below 120 mg per litre is dangerous and injection Lasix should not be given at all.
The doctor, who administered the injection, was negligent for not monitoring it before giving the injection, the commission said

In many advanced countries, this is the norm. Hospitals and doctors have to be responsible for the treatment they give. Sometimes, informally hospitals and doctors do advance an argument that with the large number of patients they treat, such mistakes can happen. This is not a permissible argument. When a patient has paid the complete amount required, a patient deserves the best treatment, and it is contingent on the hospital to provide the same.

Hospitals ordered to hand over all medical records within 72 hours

ashish — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:33:24 +0000

There have been numerous cases in the past where patients have complained that hospitals have been lax in handing over their medical records to them. Hospitals have used this delay as a deterring factor if the patient wants to move to another hospital. In cases where there is a dispute between the patient and the hospital, the patient typically feels that the hospital also uses such delays to get the time to doctor the records. In order to provide the patient with their complete set of medical records fast, the National Consumer Court passed a directive that henceforth hospitals will have to provide either the patient or the authorized representative of the patient, their complete medical records within 72 hours of receiving a request for such records. This judgment is bound to provide relief to patients who would otherwise struggle with trying to get such records from the hospital:

MUMBAI: In a landmark order, the national consumer disputes redressal commission has made it mandatory for all medical practitioners and hospitals across the country to provide the entire medical records of a patient to him\her or the authorised nominee or legal authorities concerned within 72 hours of the demand.
Simultaneously, the commission asked the Medical Council of India to promulgate a comprehensive notification. Accordingly, a week ago, the MCI directed medical practitioners and hospitals to provide the medical records of a patient within three days of the request. “In any set of circumstances, hospitals\medical practitioners shall hand over the medical records of the patient to him or his relatives within 72 hours,” the MCI said in its circular.

This is an excellent judgment, and will go a long way in making sure that the relationship between the doctor and the patient remains smooth, and does not clouded with extraneous factors. Once the patient realizes that the records are easily available and that the hospital is duty bound to provide them, they will start asserting their rights and no longer be fearful that the hospital will try to delay things if they want to change hospitals.

Lady seeks higher compensation for ovary removal

ashish — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:32:02 +0000

Motherhood is a very important stage in the life of a lady, and anything that could harm the prospect of motherhood needs to be considered very carefully. Additionally, in a sign that the Supreme Court was aware of the prospect of private hospitals and nursing homes trying to earn more money by conducting additional medical operations on patients (while the patient was on the operation theatre and only relatives had given permission), the Court had asked the medical institutions to take consent from the patient before conducting additional medical procedures (except in cases of urgency or life/death situations). Tying these 2 together, a patient whose ovaries were removed during a medical procedure by a doctor at a private hospital based on consent by relatives, has sought enhanced damages (she was awarded Rs. 25,000 earlier – clearly seems to be inadequate compensation):

In the landmark verdict on January 16, the SC had chastised private hospitals and nursing homes for inflating bills by conducting additional procedures on patients by taking consent from the relatives while he was on the operation table.
The ovaries of the victim, Samira Kohli, were removed in 1995 during a diagnostic procedure at a private hospital by one Dr Prabha Manchanda on the basis of consent taken from her relatives. She had proceeded against the doctor demanding a compensation of Rs 25 lakh on the charge that she was deprived of motherhood. Though Kohli welcomed the guidelines issued by apex court for doctors on the issue of consent of the patient before conducting any operation, she felt that the compensation of Rs 25,000 awarded by the apex court was woefully inadequate.

This is indeed a very serious case, and one feels that the compensation of Rs. 25,000 was inadequate, that too for an operation which has such serious consequences for the lady in question. Given the strictures of the court, it seems apparent that the case did not involve any element of urgent life/death question; as for consent by relatives, they can be easily influenced by the doctor given that they may be in some emotional distress at that point of time.