Patient has the right to quality care

In the absence of a specific law defining the rights of patients, consumers in India face a host of problems vis-a-vis their healthcare. They often do not get adequate information about their illnesses or the treatment. In fact, there is very little recognition of the patients’ right to information or choice and this can be seen in the way consent forms are obtained from patients for medical procedures. It is often difficult to get records of treatment from hospitals and it is almost impossible to get a copy of all the papers signed by the patient or the relative.

So much so that patients have had to fight long legal battles on many of these issues and the orders of the courts delivered in some of these cases are slowly defining their rights. Here are a few of them that people need to be aware of.

Let me begin with the right to information. In the case of Dr Shyam Kumar vs Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya ( RP No 1486 of 2001), for example, the national consumer disputes redressal commission made it clear that a doctor was duty bound to inform the patient about the details of the disease afflicting him, the various alternatives available and the risks involved in the proposed treatment. Failure to do so constituted negligence and the doctor was liable for its consequences, the commission said.

It is mandatory for hospitals to take the written consent of patients before starting any medical procedure

Another important right — the right to all medical records — flows from the order of the national commission in the case of SR Shivaprakash vs Wockardt Hospital, Mumbai ( OP No 208 of 1993). Here the commission placed an obligation on doctors and hospitals to provide the patient with all medical records pertaining to the treatment, including the nurses flow sheet, notes of duty doctors and specialists.

In the case of Dr V.K. Ghodekar vs Sumitra Prahlad Korgaonkar (RP No 1727 of 2002), the highest consumer court in the country upheld the right of the patient to all basic and vital information pertaining to the drugs prescribed by the doctor, including the contraindications. Failure to provide this information constitutes negligence, the national commission held.

This consent has to be an informed consent. In other words, the patient must know what he is agreeing to, but this is an aspect that is often ignored by hospitals. In the case of Samira Kohli vs Dr Prabha Manchanda, the Supreme Court not only emphasised the importance of informed consent, but also explained the meaning of informed consent.

The court made it clear that the consent should be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of the treatment procedure, so that the patient knew what he was consenting to.

It also defined adequate information and said this should include the nature and procedure of the treatment, its purpose, benefits and effects, alternatives, if available, besides an outline of the substantial risks and 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 to either refuse the necessary treatment or undergo a fanciful or unnecessary treatment, the apex court said.

A number of Supreme Court orders have also ensured that victims of road accidents and others requiring emergency care are not turned away by hospitals. To conclude, you have a right to choose your doctor and the hospital. You also have the right to information regarding your illness and the treatment. You also have the right to a second opinion, the right to quality care, the right to all medical records, redress of your grievance, the right to privacy and, above all, the right to be treated with dignity.

HOME