The patient was diagnosed with Inferior Vena Caca (IVC), Budd Chiari syndrome and type-II diabetes. He was admitted to the hospital under care of a nephrologist who knew the patient well. He was discharged after a week.
Few days later, the patient was admitted to another hospital under care of the same nephrologist and a physician. His blood urea and creatinine levels shot up suddenly indicating serious renal issues. He was referred to a higher centre in another city, but the airline denied to board him due to medical protocols.
The patient was brought back to the hospital, where he died few hours later.
His family sued the nephrologist, physician and hospital. They made several allegations. Transfusing mismatched blood leading to renal problems and giving incomplete discharge card were their two main contentions.
The Commission perused medical records from both hospitals and observed that the nephrologist was a family friend, known to the patient. The doctor advised blood transfusion and follow up visit after discharge from the first hospital, but the patient refused to comply and ignored the advice.
The Commission rejected allegation of mismatched blood transfusion as it was observed that the patient did not experience complications such as anaphylactic reactions after the transfusion. Patient suffered renal complications due to IVC and Budd Chiari syndrome.
While the doctor’s case was strong, there was a glaring lapse on part of hospital, observed the Commission, as it stated the following:
“The patient’s relatives were not willing to continue treatment at the hospital; therefore, discharge summary was issued which mentioned ‘Discharged on Request’ without taking any written undertaking. Thus, just mere writing ‘Discharge on Request’ on top of discharge summary does not absolve the hospital or staff from their liability. I cannot ignore the glaring deficiency on part of the junior doctor / staff and the hospital administration, who failed to obtain an undertaking (negative consent) at the time of DAMA of a critical patient. Even the experts have endorsed that during DAMA, consent / undertaking of patient or his attendants was necessary. Therefore, the hospital is held vicariously liable for the wrong of its staff”.
While the allegations against nephrologist and physician were dismissed, the hospital was held negligent for an administrative error of its staff and ordered to pay eleven lakh rupees compensation.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 15th March, 2023.