Law is speciality neutral. It is only concerned with whether or not the healthcare practitioner has followed the laid standard of protocol while treating the patient. In this case, the doctor did not and hence was held negligent.
The patient had approached Dr. Prabhakar with complain of pain in the abdomen. The doctor advised a USG which reported pelvic inflammatory disease with white discharge, dysfunctional uterine bleeding and a 5 mm renal calculus.
Dr. Prabhakar performed hysterectomy but there was no improvement in the patient’s condition. Another surgery was performed but to no avail. The patent lost the trust in Dr. Prabhakar and went to another doctor who performed yet another surgery after which her condition normalized.
Fed up with the doctor’s indifference, the patient approached State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and alleged gross negligence on doctor’s part.
The doctor presented a defiant stance. It was stated that hysterectomy was performed with utmost care. The sutures didn’t heal due to which pain could not subside, and hence another surgery was performed. However, the patient’s cervix was bulky and therefore the sutures didn’t heal, and subsequently she developed fever. An informed consent was taken from the patient and her husband before performing both surgeries, I have not erred claimed the doctor.
It seemed that the Commission was not impressed by the doctor’s tall claims. It was observed that there were two ‘glaring shortcomings’ on part of Dr. Prabhakar – firstly, anaemia was not properly managed post-surgery and no care was taken to maintain patient’s haemoglobin level. The Commission further observed that the doctor also failed in advising culture sensitivity test from the pus of the wound which could have helped her change the line of antibiotics.
Because of these ‘glaring shortcomings’, Dr. Prabhakar was held negligent and ordered to compensate the patient.
Source: Order pronounced by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh on 6th February, 2019