Rosy Kumar: Doctor in trouble

CAVEAT EMPTOR/ Doctors must not take on cases they are not qualified or equipped to handle

Take the case of tractor mechanic Dulipudi Srinivas who injured his leg in a road accident. The injury was diagnosed as a fracture of the Tibial Plethora by Dr Parasa Yogalingeswara Rao. The doctor put a Plaster of Paris dressing on the open wound.

The result was that Srinivas's left thigh and knee began swelling, developed multiple blisters and he lost sensation in some parts of his leg.

Srinivas later contacted a specialist at Vijayawada and discovered that gangrene had set in and his leg had to be amputated. Srinivas had to give up his business. In addition, he spent Rs 50,000 on his treatment.

A complaint was filed by Srinivas against the orthopaedic doctor before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The commission noted that Plaster of Paris was applied on an open wound which was opposed to all medical practices, and this was responsible for the miseries of the complainant.

The court also noted that having made the aforesaid mistake, the doctor could have rectified the same when the patient visited him again and the swelling and blisters were visible. Instead, he went on telling the patient that all this would go away in course of time.

Awarding compensation of Rs 1.75 lakh to the complainant with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and cost of Rs 5,000, the commission in its judgement observed that "whether it is a clinic or a nursing home, it is the duty of the doctor to treat the patient with due care and diligence and to provide follow-up treatment which was lacking."

In another case, decided by the Jharkhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi on December 22, 2003 the facts were that the son of the complainant Shankar Bhandari fell down from a tree as a result of which he fractured his left hand. He was taken to the clinic of Dr Mohammad Suleman Ansari, who plastered the fractured hand and prescribed certain medicines.

The next day, the fractured hand began to hurt intensely and later it became swollen. Both the pain and the swelling continued for a considerable period of time. The patient was taken once again to the doctor's clinic. The doctor, however, assured him that the injured hand would soon heal.

Later, when the pain became unbearable, the patient was taken to the clinic of Dr L K Lal who, after examining the fractured hand, said that the swelling accompanied with acute pain was the result of the wrong plastering by an unskilled person.

Dr Lal referred the patient immediately to an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr D K Basu, in whose clinic he had to stay for more than a month. However, the patient did not recover and became permanently handicapped, incapable of using his left hand.

The state commission, on analysing the evidence before it, found that the respondent Dr Ansari was not qualified to treat the patient suffering from an orthopaedic problem since he was neither medically qualified nor had any experience in this line of treatment. His letterhead showed that he was a specialist in women's and children's diseases.

The state commission held the doctor grossly deficient in his medical services and directed him to pay a sum of Rs 1.5 lakh by way of compensation and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs 5,000. In addition, he was directed to pay Rs 20,000 to the complainant, being the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the patient.

From the above, it is obviousthat the confidence reposed by patients in their doctors is being shaken. The worst scenario is that doctors have been treating the patients suffering from ailments for which they are neither equipped nor experienced.

A second opinion in all such cases appears to have become necessary, to avoid sufferings caused by wrong treatment.