Doc liable for death due to reckless administration of meds

Doc liable for death due to reckless administration of meds 

CONSUMER AS KING  14.10.2024 

Jehangir Gai Asha Srivastava suffered from an insect bite, resulting in redness in her leg. She went to Sudha Hospital in Kota, walking on her own without assistance. Since it was a Sunday, the OPD was closed and she was directed to the Emergency where Dr. Hasendra Singh examined her and stated that she was suffering from “cellulitis and septicemia”. 

He informed her that the leg would have to be amputated. He asked the staff to admit her and bring her in for surgery at 13 hours when the operation theater would be available. When the patient went to the operation theater, Dr. Sharad Bhargava, who was present, informed her that the slight swelling in her leg could be cured by medicine.

He did a dressing and asked her to go home. Dr. Singh reached the operation theater just as the patient was coming out. Upon learning what had transpired, he stated that Dr. Bhargava’s knowledge is bad, and that there is an urgency to amputate the leg. Dr. Singh, in collusion with Dr. R.K. Agarwal convinced the patient and admitted her in a half constructed room as there was no bed available. Her blood samples were collected. Before the report came in, he administered some antibiotic which caused headache, dizziness and restlessness. 

Dr. Singh stated that no medicine could be given to counter the reaction as it might result in heart attack or paralysis. Later, when the reports came in, most of the results were normal, including the TLC count which showed no indication of cellulitis and septicemia Only urea was slightly high due to hot weather and less intake of water. The patient was then put on an IV infusion which made her scream through the night due to headache and dizziness. The staff refused a request to inform Dr. Singh about the patient’s condition. By morning the patient developed breathing difficulty. 

Dr. Singh finally came on his round at 9.30 am, and ordered her to be shifted to the ICU. In the evening, Dr. Singh stated that the patient would require dialysis as she had suffered kidney damage due to less urine output, During fresh tests, the sonography and colour doppler reports were also normal. However, the patient was referred to another doctor, Y. Gauam, who informed her that both her kidneys were completely damaged. Without consulting any nephrologist, he opined that only dialysis could save the patient’s life, and carried out this procedure. After the procedure, the patient developed gastrointestinal bleeding. She stopped responding to verbal commands, the face became puffy, and the blood pressure became high. She was administered a drip of Lizolid even though the medicine bottle was covered with fungus. Dialysis was repeated. The patient was sent home as nothing further could be medically done, and she expired on. August 26, 2006. 

Sumit Srivastava, the patient’s son filed a complaint before the Rajasthan State Commission. It was contested, claiming that all treatment was given as per medical protocol, and dialysis was done after consulting nephrologist Dr. Aloke Jain. The State Commission observed that heavy antibiotics were given without waiting for the test results. The test result proved that there was no justification for administering such heavy antibiotics and carrying out unnecessary procedures. The medical record did not show that Dr. Jain was consulted prior to dialysis. There was no explanation why the patient suffered gastrointestinal bleeding. It held the hospital and the doctors jointly liable to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation and Rs 51,000 as litigation costs. 

The order was challenged in appeal on the ground that the expert evidence produced by the doctors showed that there was no negligence. The National Commission observed that negligence is a mixed question of fact and law. and that an expert’s opinion would not be binding on the consumer fora. Accordingly, by order dated September 17, 2024, delivered by the Bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, the appeal was dismissed.