The patient was in an advance stage of cancer and also suffered from liver ailments. He was taking treatment from the hospital, including chemotherapy, for a long time. He was admitted as his liver issues took a serious turn.
During one of the days, the patient felt a sudden urge to urinate. His brother-in-law was on the bedside; he took the pot kept under the bed. In a sudden second, the patient fell from bed. He suffered head injury and was shifted to ICU. All efforts were in vain as he died after few days.
The patient’s family sued the hospital. They made two pointed allegations. The first one was that there was no one to attend to patient when he desperately needed to urinate. There was no information given by hospital how to prevent patient falling from the bed. And the second allegation was that medical records were tampered with, as there was some writing below the designated area in some of the documents.
The hospital vehemently denied these allegations. It was stated that the patient’s brother-in-law took the responsibility of helping patient rather than waiting for hospital staff. It was further stated that patient’s family was explained about the use of side rails, call bell, visitation policy, and rules regarding safety precautions at the time of bed allotment. The family was adequately counselled and one of the family members had signed the Fall Risk Assessment Tool document.
The hospital finally pointed out that patient was in advance stage cancer with severe coagulation parameters – he was prone to bleeding even from a minor injury.
The Commission perused medical records and accepted hospital’s defence.
It was observed that the patient’s family were adequately explained about fall risks and how to prevent them – they had signed the document, acknowledging the information.
With regards to allegations of tampering with medical records, the Commission made an important observation:
“It is pertinent to mention here that it is a common practice amongst medical professionals to write prescriptions / directions on documents pertaining to patients’ medical records with a view to facilitate compliance with the said prescriptions / directions. Even if it is assumed that the said instructions were inserted later, the family was already educated on fall prevention modules. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the bed was equipped with bed rails and a call bell. The said document is a tool to assess the risk of fall, and merely reiterating the instructions for use of already existing bed rails, call bell, fall prevention, etc. does not amount to fabrication”.
The case and allegations against the hospital were dismissed.
Source : Order pronounced by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 13th July, 2023.