Here is an instance in which proper informed consent and treatment as well as well-maintained record as per SOP saved medical professionals from a claim of Rs. 1.5 Crore.

This judgment came about in the case of Shashi Dvivedi v/s Dr.Mukund Prasad (Paras Hosptal, Patna).

The case that was filed

• The case was filed by the husband of a patient claiming compensation for his wife’s death. The patient’s name was Smt.Saroj
• Once she was admitted, owing to her condition an immediate CT Scan was performed. The scan revealed right side hemorrhage and also a midline shift of the brain towards the left side. The complainant did pay the required charges. The patient was then moved to the ICU where she was looked after by cardiologists, neuro-physician and nephrologists.
• Following the reports the decision was made to perform an immediate operation. The complainant alleged that he was told that the operation could be conducted only after depositing the entire sum of Rs.3,50,000. However, the complainant was only able to arrange Rs.1,67,000.
• Another allegation was that there also was a violation of Ethic Regulation Rules, mainly the rule number 3.5 by which the opinion of the specialist doctor wasn’t communicated to the attending physician.
• By 1:00 AM, the patient was taken to the OT. The surgery was finished by 4:30 AM. However, it was informed that the chance of survival was nil.
• Yet another allegation was that the patient’s head was not shaved. Also, the CD of operation wasn’t given though it was demanded. The complete medical record was not provided either. So, a complaint claiming damages of Rs.1.5 Cr. was filed.

The ruling

• After perusing the entire record and hearing of the parties involved in merits, the National Commission dismissed the complaint.
• It was found that the treatment given pertained to the diagnosis.
• Also, in the doctor’s assessment sheet it was mentioned that the patient may die on OP Table or even 1 hour after the operation or that the patient may go vegetative. The same was explained to the patient’s attendant who signed accordingly. In other words, there was an informed consent.
• The Commission further held that no cure shouldn’t be taken as the negligence of a doctor

   Send article as PDF