Doctors and hospitals would be well within their legal rights to refuse to continue treatment if the patient fails to obey pre-operative and intra-operative requisites. This recent judgement from top consumer court is an apt example of the aforementioned fact.
The patient was diagnosed with tumour in left kidney. Thankfully, it was confined and there was no immediate threat to her life.
Patient’s husband was asked to arrange two units of blood. He visited the hospital’s blood bank, but was reported unfit for blood donation. He apparently did not appreciate this fact as he sought DAMA and took his wife to another hospital where an operation was performed.
The husband was so upset with hospital that he dragged everyone to the court. It was alleged that in spite of being a regular donor, he was denied to donate blood. It was also alleged that the doctors decided to transfer the patient without giving a second thought. It was an upsetting experience, claimed the irate husband.
The Commission too seemed to be upset as it made following observations:
“The hospital is a charitable hospital, having highly qualified doctors to provide best quality medical service. After investigations, the left renal tumour was diagnosed and radical nephrectomy was decided. As the tumour was confined to kidney, therefore, there was no immediate threat to life. However, patient’s husband panicked and insisted that the surgery be conducted immediately. Therefore, as an exception, the patient was admitted”.
“The patient’s husband was insistent; therefore, arrangements were made for surgery on the next date. The husband was advised to arrange two units of blood, but he did not arrange the same and instead came to the blood bank alone. He reported the blood bank at 2 PM. Subsequently, screening test with filling of donor questionnaire and screening tests were conducted till 3 PM. However, based on screening test, he was declared unfit to donate the blood owing to his age and health conditions. The rejection was done as per the standard guidelines prescribed by the Drug Controller and Ministry of Health”.
“On this issue he made a huge ruckus and did not want the patient to be operated in the hospital and sought immediate discharge. We note from the blood bank record that two units of blood was cross matched and kept it ready for the scheduled surgery on next date. Even it is evident that the patient or her legal representatives did not sign the consent for surgery. Therefore, the preparation for surgery was stopped and in absence of consent, operation could not be performed. Therefore, the patient was discharged”.
“The apprehension to get patient operated immediately was wrong. CT scan and other investigations clearly showed that it was a separate mass confined to left kidney and as such there was no emergency. Such operation needs number of units of blood, and thus, without pre-operative arrangements, surgery could not be performed. Denial or deferral of the operation does not constitute medical negligence”.
Making these detailed observations, the Commission dismissed patient’s case against the doctor and hospital.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 14th February, 2023.