Order Name: V.C. Rawat Vs. Akshaya Hospital
Case No.: F.A. No. 587/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, has dismissed an appeal against Akshaya Hospital. The case revolved around whether doctors with an MD in medicine need extra intensive care training to treat ICU patients. The Commission held that such doctors are sufficiently qualified.
Case Background
The complainant’s wife was admitted to Akshaya Hospital’s ICU due to uneasiness. Despite the hospital being a specialty heart center, it was alleged that no senior doctors examined her. Instead, her care was left to junior staff and homeopathy assistants. The complainant raised several issues, including poor monitoring, inappropriate medication, lack of informed consent, and possible manipulation of medical records. Unfortunately, the patient passed away, reportedly due to cardiac-related issues. The complainant argued that this diagnosis contradicted previous test results and ECG readings, claiming that the lack of senior doctor examinations, improper medication, and inadequate monitoring contributed to her death. The initial complaint was dismissed by the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, leading to an appeal before the National Commission.
Hospital’s Defense
Akshaya Hospital contended that nitroglycerine (NTG) and other medications were administered appropriately. They argued that senior doctors were not required as the attending doctor was present. The hospital denied the involvement of junior doctors, asserting that all staff were adequately qualified. They pointed out that a second ECG showed the patient’s condition had stabilized before she experienced cardiac arrest, despite immediate resuscitation efforts. The hospital highlighted the patient’s history of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension, which contributed to the sudden cardiac arrest. They explained that the medical procedures followed were standard and that there was no deficiency in service.
Commission’s Observations
The National Commission assessed the qualifications of the attending doctor and concluded that an MD in Medicine is competent to treat ICU patients without additional intensive care training. The Commission found that the patient’s medical history was properly recorded upon admission. The concerns about the risky infusion of NTG and lack of informed consent were addressed, with the hospital explaining the standard procedures followed. The Commission noted that the patient’s vital signs were monitored regularly and found no evidence of negligence or excessive NTG dosage. It determined that the patient’s blood pressure and other vitals were maintained within acceptable ranges during treatment. Ultimately, the Commission ruled that the hospital provided appropriate care and upheld the State Commission’s order, dismissing the appeal.
Takeaway
This judgment reinforces that doctors with an MD in Medicine are deemed qualified to manage ICU patients without needing additional intensive care training. It highlights the importance of proper documentation and adherence to standard medical procedures in defending against claims of medical negligence.
