Ahmedabad doctor to pay for negligence

20-year-old Prakash Khushwaha had sought treatment from Dr Arvind Shah on Sept. 4, 1997 in his polyclinic in the Saraspur area. Unfortunately, after being administered the medicine, Prakash died on Sept. 6, 1997.

The mother of the deceased, Kamala, blamed Shah for the death of her son based on wrong treatment. She approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), alleging that the doctor had failed to record provisional diagnosis of her son’s ailment before prescribing treatment.

She demanded a compensation of Rs 11.05 lakh along with the cost of the proceedings.

The doctor’s defense
The state commission had directed the doctor to pay Rs5 lakh. However, Shah challenged the order of the state commission in the national commission.

In his defense, Shah declared that the medicines prescribed by him did not have any relation with the actual cause of death, i.e. "pulmonary oedema", as established by the post-mortem report.

He further stated that he had not diagnosed Prakash with malaria since pathological tests are vital to establish malaria, and no such test report was available on Sept. 4. He also contended that Prakash underwent medical intervention at "other hospitals, including one Shardaben hospital", after Sept. 4 until his death.

The commission’s order
The complainant’s lawyer, Aruna Shah, said the commission was quite critical of doctor's professional conduct. Dr Shah had initially denied to the state commission that he had treated Prakash on a particular day and later admitted that he had done so.

Taking into account the laxity of the doctor, NCDRC stated, “The doctor is clearly guilty of serious deficiency in service in not issuing a prescription for treatment to the deceased, and then not recording his diagnosis in prescription.”

In its order, the commission observed that taking into consideration the socio-economic conditions in India, it is essential that a doctor-patient relationship be cultivated on the basis of trust.

“To strengthen the traditional relationship of trust between a patient and his doctor and also to guard against the unscrupulous element in this relationship, it is in the interest of both parties, particularly a reasonably competent doctor to record a prescription mentioning the patient’s history of complaints, current symptoms, his vital parameters and other clinical observations and a provisional diagnosis…,” wrote the commission in its order.