The Allahabad High Court criticized private hospitals for treating patients like “ATM machines” in a case where a doctor delayed surgery, leading to the death of a fetus. The Court refused to cancel criminal charges, calling it a clear act of negligence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday said that private hospitals are treating patients like ATM machines just to earn money. The Court gave this observation while refusing to cancel criminal charges against a doctor accused of medical negligence.
Justice Prashant Kumar was hearing a case involving Dr. Ashok Kumar, the owner of a nursing home, who had admitted a pregnant woman for surgery without having an anaesthetist present. The anaesthetist arrived hours later, and by then, the unborn baby was found dead.
The Court was clearly upset with the way the nursing home handled the situation and said this problem is becoming common across the country.
The Court stated:
“It is common practice these days that private nursing homes/hospitals tend to entice the patients for treatment even though they do not have the doctors or infrastructure. When the patient is admitted in a private hospital they start calling for the doctor to treat the patient. It is common knowledge that the private hospitals/nursing homes have started treating the patients as guinea pig/ATM machines only to extort money out of them.”
According to the Court, doctors who work sincerely and carefully should be protected by law. But those who run nursing homes without proper setup or qualified staff just to make money must be held responsible.
The Court said that such hospitals invite patients inside and then start searching for doctors, which is not only unethical but dangerous.
In this case, the doctor claimed that the family members did not agree to the surgery on time. But the Court rejected this claim. It called it a case of “pure misadventure”, saying the doctor admitted the patient and took the family’s consent for the surgery, but still did not perform the surgery on time because there was no anaesthetist.
The Court explained:
“The allegation of the informant is that the doctor had taken consent for operation at about 12 O’ clock but surgery could not be carried out as the nursing home did not have the anaesthetist. It is only after the arrival of the anaesthetist that the patient was operated,”
-it noted.
The judgment also acknowledged that when someone dies during treatment, families often look for someone to blame.
But in legal terms, a doctor can only be protected if they acted carefully and like any other responsible doctor would have done in that situation.
The Court focused on whether the doctor showed reasonable care and responsibility in this case. It noted:
“In this matter, though consent was taken around 12 o’clock but the operation was conducted at 5.30 pm. Delay in conducting the surgery was non availability of the anaesthetist, which resulted in death of the child.”
Interestingly, the Medical Board had supported the doctor, but the Court refused to accept the Board’s opinion. The reason was that not all documents were presented before the Board, so its report was not complete.
The Court concluded:
“This is a case where prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and there is no justification to invoke inherent powers for any interference in the impugned proceedings.”
So, the Court refused to quash the criminal case against the doctor.
The Court also raised concern over another related issue—the delay in a consumer complaint filed by the victim’s family. It had been pending for 16 years in the Consumer Court without any result.
The Court remarked:
“Surprisingly, the consumer complaint lodged by the victim’s family has still not been deliberated upon and has been lying for the last 16 years in the Consumer Court. Since, the said proceeding is not under challenge in this application, I refrain from making any comments on the same.”
- Senior Advocate IK Chaturvedi along with Advocate Shailendra Kumar Rai appeared for the doctor.
- Advocate SD Pandey represented the State.
- Advocate SK Mishra appeared for the complainant.
CASE TITLE:
Dr Ashok Kumar Rai v State of UP and another.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Private Hospitals
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
