CONSUMER RIGHTS
Doctors liable for wrong diagnosis
Pushpa Girimaji

Medicines can cure, but they can also kill if the dosage is wrong, or the doctor’s diagnosis itself is incorrect, or if there is a severe adverse reaction. No one knows this better than a physician. Yet there are medical professionals who routinely and carelessly prescribe medications without even bothering to examine the patient, or making a proper diagnosis based on scientific principles.

Two years ago, the apex consumer court had taken a serious view of such conduct and held that it would constitute negligence, and the doctor would be liable for the consequences.

Now in another somewhat similar case, it has sent out a clear signal to physicians that it would not condone such negligent, callous, unethical and unprofessional behaviour. The latest case centres around the unfortunate and untimely death of a young boy, barely nine, as a result of an adverse drug reaction.

What makes this case so tragic is the fact that the doctor, who prescribed the medicine without any application of mind, later failed to recognise the fact that the child was suffering from an adverse drug reaction and treat him in time for it.

It all began when Aditya’s parents took him on September 30, 1997, to a general practitioner for the treatment of fever. The doctor routinely prescribed a strong medication for malaria without even bothering to find out if the child really had malaria. The dose prescribed was also on the higher side. After a couple of days, the fever came down, but on October 14, the parents took the child back to the doctor with a complaint of red and watery eyes. The doctor suggested some eye drops, and the next day the child returned with high fever and red patches on the chest and the back as well as red and watery eyes.

This time, the doctor again prescribed medicine for malaria, and just half an hour after taking the tablet, Aditya developed rashes all over the body. Subsequently, two paediatricians who saw him diagnosed the problem as adverse drug reaction.

Unfortunately, the first doctor who treated him had made several mistakes — first of all, she had prescribed a medication for malaria without even a clinical examination of the child. Second, the dosage was high. Third, even after the child came with symptoms of the "Stevens Johnson Syndrome’ (SJS) caused by the medicine, the doctor failed to recognise it and prescribed the same medication once again, thereby resulting in the development of a full-fledged SJS, eventually resulting in the death of the child on October 24. Here, the national consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed the contention of the doctor that since malaria was highly prevalent in the area where the child lived, she had prescribed the medication as per the instructions of the Health Department.

Observing that the doctor did not even clinically examine the child before prescribing the medication, the commission pointed out: "A perusal of her first prescription dated 30th of September, 1997, betrays complete lack of professional conduct, inasmuch as the prescription does not indicate the age of the child, nor does it indicate as to whether he was running fever at the time of examination, and whether there were other symptoms from which she could arrive at a proper conclusion that the child was suffering from malaria."

"Even if the case is taken to be that of malaria, straightaway prescribing strong medication without any investigation will not be justified. In fact it runs counter to the treatment protocol on malaria prescribed by the national drug policy on malaria of the Government of India," the commission said, upholding the compensation of Rs 2.6 lakh along with 7 per cent interest (calculated from the time of filing the complaint till payment) awarded by the lower commission (Dr V.C. Bendale vs Leela Veerajaneyulu, RP No 586 of 2006, decided on December 16,2010).

HOME