Patient sits on dharna, faces instant karma

  • Posted on: October 16, 2020

So many patients these days are resorting to arm twisting tactics. Most of such unfortunate incidents are due to their ignorance, as is observed by honourable Consumer Commission in this case.

Narendra visited the hospital complaining of yellow discharge from his left nostril. The doctor, to arrive at proper diagnosis, advised CT cisternography which was performed by radiologist at the hospital.

The patient experienced stiffness in the neck, headache, dizziness and loss of balance the same evening. It probably scared him to the bones as he rushed to the hospital and consulted another doctor who advised hospitalisation for four days.

Narendra followed the advice but was unhappy with the unexpected outcome, and gave a written complaint to the hospital CTO. He also created quite a ruckus due to which cops had to be called.

The situation worsened – more so for Narendra. He sued the hospital and alleged that an improper consent was taken as he was not informed about the consequences of CT cisternography. He also alleged of being thrown away from the hospital with help of the police. What is really shocking is that he claimed compensation of six crore rupees for his supposed mistreatment!

The Commission did not find this amusing as it was observed that Narendra had signed on the consent form which was duly filled and he was also explained the possibility of pain, bleeding, and other complications he experienced. It was further observed that the CTO repeatedly reassured the patient but to no avail. Narendra kept threatening them of dire consequences and sat on ‘dharna’ causing hindrance to other patients. The cops had to be called inevitably.

Putting an end to the drama, the Commission stated, “We find that the patient has filed the complaint being ignorant of medical procedures. The post lumber puncture headache is a known complication in a few patients and it is reversible. The procedure of CT cisternography was duly performed, after informed consent, by the doctor. It was merely an assumption by the patient that there was a leak at the site of lumber puncture”.

Source: Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 18th June, 2020.