The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) recently ruled a case of medical negligence against doctors in Ranchi, Jharkhand, leading to the unfortunate demise of a patient in 2003.
Unveiling Medical Negligence in Ranchi, Jharkhand
The NCDC granted compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the complainant, the patient’s mother, following its determination that doctors failed to provide appropriate treatment despite the patient’s ultrasound report confirming acute pancreatitis.
Dr. D. Mohan’s Oversight and Misdiagnosis
Dr. D. Mohan, the attending doctor, overlooked the patient initially and conducted an examination only on 07.03.2003, at 11:30 am. Relying on incomplete information from the ultrasound report, this led to a misdiagnosis. The NCDRC highlighted, “…even after identifying pancreatitis, no treatment was provided during the patient’s hospitalization,” thereby setting aside the 2018 order of a state commission.
Maya Sharma’s Fight for Justice
Maya Sharma, the grieving mother of the deceased Navin Sharma, took a stand by filing a revision petition against the Jharkhand State Commission.
Ignored Indications and Deteriorating Health
Sharma, admitted to Raj Hospital in 2003 due to abdominal pain and vomiting, underwent several examinations, including an ultrasound indicating pancreatitis. However, alleged negligence in addressing crucial aspects of the report led to Sharma’s health decline and eventual demise.
Allegations of Overlooked Diagnostic Clues
Maya alleged that the doctor disregarded a significant part of the ultrasound report, indicating ‘ascites minimal pleural effusion.’ This condition denotes excess fluid accumulation between the lungs and ribs, a critical indicator of acute pancreatitis.
Expert Opinions Validate Negligence Claims
Expert opinions from Dr. G S Vats and Dr. Samir Rai corroborated the claim of medical negligence, emphasizing the failure to diagnose acute pancreatitis despite clear indications in the ultrasound report.
Balancing Perspectives: Mortality Rates and Defense Arguments
Despite a 20 percent mortality rate associated with acute pancreatitis, the doctors defended their actions. They argued that despite their utmost efforts, they were unable to save the patient, thereby refuting any accusations of negligence.
The Hospital’s Stance and Expert Opinions
The hospital defended its position, stating that the expert opinions of Dr. Vats and Dr. Rai did not signify any deviation from professional standards or flaws in the treatment plan.
Conclusion
The NCDC’s ruling in this case sheds light on the significance of proper diagnosis and treatment in the medical field. The verdict underlines the gravity of addressing critical indicators in medical reports to prevent unfortunate consequences, emphasizing the responsibility of medical practitioners in ensuring patient care and well-being.
If you are also looking for a solution to the complaint, File a Complaint Now!
Consumer Complaints Forum 