Patient has right to quality health care

Pushpa Girimaji

THIS week I would like to string together some of the important orders of consumer courts pertaining to the rights of patients. Since we do not have any special laws on the subject, these orders help establish the rights of patients and protect their interests. Let me begin with the case of Pravat Kumar Mukherjee vs Ruby General Hospital (OP No 909 of 2002), where the national consumer disputes redressal commission emphasised the patient's right to emergency treatment, and held that a hospital that denied such a treatment was guilty of negligence. The verdict was in response to a complaint where a hospital had denied emergency treatment to an accident victim on the ground that it had not received the required cash deposit.

Then in the case of Dr Shyam Kumar vs Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya (RP No 1486 of 2001), the highest court in the country emphasised the patient's right to information and informed choice. Here, the national commission underscored the duty of the doctor in this regard and said a doctor was duty bound to inform the patient about the diagnosis and the treatment and also help the patient make an informed choice with regard to his treatment. Failure to do so constituted negligence, the commission said.

In the case of SR Shivaprakash vs Wockardt Hospital, Mumbai (OP No 208 of 1993), the national consumer disputes redressal commission made it clear that the hospital as well as the doctor have an obligation to provide all medical records pertaining to the treatment to the patient or the relatives, as the case may be. Failure to furnish the records would open the hospital and the doctor to the charge of deficiency in service, the commission said. This is again an important order as even today, many doctors and hospitals do not provide patients all the medical records pertaining to the treatment.

In the case of Dr VK Ghodekar vs Sumitra Prahlad Korgaonkar (RP No 1727 of 2002), the national commission emphasised the right of the patient to all basic and vital information pertaining to the drugs prescribed by the doctor, including the contraindications. Failure to give this vital information constitutes deficiency in the service provided by the doctor, and the doctor would be held liable for the consequences of such deficiency, the apex court said.

Hospitals which resort to unnecessary surgical procedures, more on commercial consideration than the health of the patients, can also be hauled up for deficiency in service and made to pay for the consequences. In the case of Varadhan S.Nair vs Dr (Mrs) Remani Rajan and Ors (Original petition no 123 of 1997, decided on May 30, 2005), the national commission came down heavily on doctors and hospitals that resorted to unnecessary surgical procedure, thereby putting the life of the patient at risk.

Hospitals often ask the patient or the relatives to give consent to a surgery without giving proper information about it. In the case of Dhanwanti Kaur vs Dr SK Jhunjhunwala (FA No 93 of 2004, decided on September 1, 2009), the national commission not only emphasised the importance of "informed consent", but made it clear that the consent given for a specific treatment procedure will not be valid for conducting some other treatment procedure, except in emergency situations. A doctor who violates this principle is guilty of negligence, the commission held.

The national commission here quoted the Supreme Court's order in the case of Samira Kohli vs Dr Prabha Manchanda (2008-2 SCC), where it explained that in order to get an informed consent, a doctor should disclose (a) nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits and effects; (b) alternatives, if any available; (c) an outline of the substantial risks; and (d) adverse consequences of refusing treatment. But there is no need to explain remote or theoretical risks involved in the process or in its refusal, so as to frighten a patient either into refusing the necessary treatment or undergoing a fanciful or unnecessary treatment, the apex court had said.

So the next time you visit a hospital, remember, you have the right to quality and safe health care, besides certain other rights such as the right to information about the diagnosis and the treatment, the right to medical records, the right to choice, the right to be treated with dignity and respect and the right to redress.

HOME