In an important decision, the Allahabad High Court has made a sharp comment on private hospitals and nursing homes for using patients as ATM machines to mint money .
The court refused to give relief to a doctor accused of medical negligence in a 2008 case, in which a fetus died due to alleged delay in surgery.
This order was given by the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar while dismissing the petition of Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai of Deoria district.
A case was registered on July 27, 2007in which it was alleged that the pregnant wife of the complainant’s younger brother was admitted to Dr. Rai’s nursing home.
The family had agreed to a cesarean surgery at 11 am, but the surgery was done at 5:30 pm, by then the fetus had died. It is alleged that when the family objected, the nursing home staff and colleagues also beat them up.
The FIR also stated that the doctor took ₹8,700 and demanded ₹10,000 more. The doctor also refused to issue a discharge slip. The doctor moved the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the case.
The court, after hearing the parties, refused to rely on the report of the medical board as it found that crucial documents such as post-mortem report and other operation theatre notes were not produced before the board.
The court also found that the anaesthetist was called at around 3.30 pm, indicating that the hospital lacked preparation and facilities.
“It is a case of pure accident where the doctor admitted the patient and did not perform the operation on time even after taking permission from the patient’s family members for the operation as they did not have the requisite doctor (i.e. anaesthetist) to perform the surgery,” the judge remarked.
The court cited Supreme Court judgments such as Dr Suresh Gupta vs State of Delhi and Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab to hold that the protection afforded to doctors applies only when the professional has performed his duty efficiently.
The bench emphasised that criminal liability arises if ordinary care is not exercised by a doctor while treating a patient. Looking at the facts of the case, the court termed it a “classic” case where the operation was delayed by 4-5 hours without any reason and the post-mortem report cited the cause of death of the foetus as “prolonged labour pain”.
The court said that this fact clearly shows the doctor’s malicious intent to deceive the patient.
The court also acknowledged that medical professionals should be protected from frivolous suits, but reiterated that this protection would apply only if the medical professional has performed his duty efficiently.
The Court said that the time of admission of the patient, the time of surgery and the time of taking consent from the patient’s family are three important aspects in this case which should be considered after presenting the evidence.
Taking into consideration all these facts, the Court found no ground to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition.