|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patients in India may not have a special law codifying their rights (as in many other countries), but several orders of the apex court have helped protect their rights, particularly the right to information, the right to proper and humane treatment and the right to medical records. Now, in a recent order, the highest consumer court in the country has upheld the right of the patient to all basic and vital information pertaining to the drugs prescribed by the doctor, including the side effects. The court has pointed out that a doctor is duty-bound to inform the patient about the details of the disease afflicting him, the various alternatives available to him and the risks involved in the proposed treatment. Failure to do so constituted negligence in the service provided. In one case the doctor had not informed the patient of the chances of success before operating on his eye. In the case of S.R.Shivaprakash vs Wockardt Hospital, Mumbai, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the hospital or the doctor has an obligation to provide all medical records pertaining to the treatment to the patient or the relatives (in case of death of the patient). Failure to furnish the details would open the hospital to the charge of deficiency in service, the commission ruled. The latest case (Dr V.K.Ghodekar) is an important addition to these previous orders upholding the rights of patients. This present case has its origin in the failure of the doctor, who prescribed an anti-diabetic drug, to inform the patient as to when he should take it (before or after food), that he should avoid alcohol and also the possible adverse effects of the drug, resulting in the patient suffering hypoglycaemia and going into a coma. The court held the doctor guilty of not giving this vital information about the drug to the patient and, thereby, providing negligent service. This order should force medical practitioners to communicate better with patients and respect their right to information, particularly in respect of the medicines that they are advised to take. In this particular case, the patient, 45-year old Pralhad Korgaonkar, went to Dr V.K.Ghodekar in Aldona village with a complaint of chronic cough and cold. The doctor, after examining him, suggested that he get the urine examined, and on the basis of the urine analysis, came to the conclusion that the patient was diabetic. Without any confirmatory tests to ensure that the patient was really diabetic and without checking the blood sugar level, the doctor prescribed an anti-diabetic drug that needed to be administered with care and the dosage to be regulated carefully, depending on the level of blood sugar. Worse, he did not tell him when and how the medicine had to be taken, that he should avoid alcohol and that the drug could induce hypoglycaemia. The patient was to take the tablet for five days, but just after three days, he was admitted to hospital in an unconscious state and went into a coma. The doctors at the hospital treated him for hypoglycaemia and he did come out of coma. But he had suffered irreversible neurological damage as a result of the hypoglycaemia. He remained in the hospital for 40 days and was subsequently discharged. Some months later he died. Based on medical
literature produced before it and the statements of the doctors at the
hospital, who treated him for hypoglycaemia and confirmed irreversible
damage to his brain as a result of drug-induced lowering of sugar
levels, the apex court confirmed the finding of the Goa State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission that the doctor was negligent on two
counts: (a) in carelessly administering an anti-diabetic drug, whose
dosage had to be regulated carefully on the basis of the blood sugar
level, without even checking the blood sugar level of the patient or
confirming that he was indeed diabetic; and (b) for not giving the
patient adequate information about the drug and its side effects.
|
||
|
|
||
