Posts
Source: The Times of India
Surgeon to pay for ‘incomplete’ prescription
By Rebecca Samervel,
TNN | Jan 29, 2013
The country's top consumer commission has held a Delhi
doctor guilty of "limited medical negligence" for verbally advising,
instead of prescribing in writing, the use of eye drops to a patient who lost
his vision following its prolonged application.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on January 16 upheld an order of the Delhi consumer commission that directed Dr Vivek Pal to pay the patient, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, compensation of Rs 50,000. In its decision, the apex body faulted the eye surgeon for not spelling out in writing the "dosage and duration of the medicine". And at the same time, it blamed Gupta for not turning up for follow-ups and for continuing the drops despite being provided just one vial by the doctor.
The case dates to June 1993, when Gupta consulted Dr Pal for a problem in his left eye. The doctor diagnosed it as an "innocuous growth" called Pytreygium and advised its removal through minor surgery lest it get bigger. Dr Pal assured that the eye would be normal in five days. After the surgery was conducted at the doctor's clinic, Gupta was prescribed medicine for local application along with oral medication. Soon after however, he felt pain and irritation in the left eye as it became red.
A suffering Gupta returned to Dr Pal. In one consultation, the surgeon told him to continue the local application medication, Mitomycine-C. In another, he changed the medication. But all through, Gupta alleged, his eye kept worsening, leading to loss of vision.
Finally, Gupta consulted another ophthalmologist, who informed him that the left eye had become very dry as Mitomycine-C was "wrongly prescribed". Gupta was asked to consult other specialists who too confirmed that the eye was damaged due to the medicine's protracted use. He was warned to stop all medicines.
Alleging that the eye damage adversely affected his professional and personal life, Gupta filed a complaint with the Delhi consumer commission in 1995.
Denying the accusations, Dr Pal maintained that the surgery went satisfactorily. He said that Gupta was asked to use a medicine for local application and, once the eye was healed after a week, Mitomycine-C (an injection converted into eye drops) for two weeks. This, he added, was prescribed to prevent recurrence of Pytreygium. Dr Pal continued that Gupta was told to use it thrice daily and verbally warned that its overuse for over two weeks could be harmful.
According to Dr Pal, Gupta did not pay heed: the patient did not return for further check-ups to him, continued using the eye drops, and took treatment from other doctors. Only in March 1994 did Gupta return to Dr Pal.
In August 2006, the Delhi commission held the doctor guilty of "limited negligence" and ordered him to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation. It noted that the fact that Gupta could not be excused for "contributory negligence" was a mitigating circumstance for awarding the compensation.
Nevertheless, dissatisfied with the damages, Gupta filed an appeal for enhancement.
The national commission observed this month that since the doctor had converted just one vial of Mitomycine-C injection into eye drops the indication was for its limited use for about two weeks and not several months. "It was under these circumstances that the state commission held the respondent (doctor) guilty of only 'limited medical negligence' for not having put down in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine in the prescription slip," the national body said.
The aggrieved person, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, lost his eyesight in one eye after prolonged use of eye drops prescribed by Dr Vivek Pal. The national consumer commission upheld a state commission's ruling that said Dr Vivek Pal was guilty of 'limited medical negligence' since he had failed to put in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine. He was ordered to pay Gupta Rs 50,000 as compensation.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on January 16 upheld an order of the Delhi consumer commission that directed Dr Vivek Pal to pay the patient, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, compensation of Rs 50,000. In its decision, the apex body faulted the eye surgeon for not spelling out in writing the "dosage and duration of the medicine". And at the same time, it blamed Gupta for not turning up for follow-ups and for continuing the drops despite being provided just one vial by the doctor.
The case dates to June 1993, when Gupta consulted Dr Pal for a problem in his left eye. The doctor diagnosed it as an "innocuous growth" called Pytreygium and advised its removal through minor surgery lest it get bigger. Dr Pal assured that the eye would be normal in five days. After the surgery was conducted at the doctor's clinic, Gupta was prescribed medicine for local application along with oral medication. Soon after however, he felt pain and irritation in the left eye as it became red.
A suffering Gupta returned to Dr Pal. In one consultation, the surgeon told him to continue the local application medication, Mitomycine-C. In another, he changed the medication. But all through, Gupta alleged, his eye kept worsening, leading to loss of vision.
Finally, Gupta consulted another ophthalmologist, who informed him that the left eye had become very dry as Mitomycine-C was "wrongly prescribed". Gupta was asked to consult other specialists who too confirmed that the eye was damaged due to the medicine's protracted use. He was warned to stop all medicines.
Alleging that the eye damage adversely affected his professional and personal life, Gupta filed a complaint with the Delhi consumer commission in 1995.
Denying the accusations, Dr Pal maintained that the surgery went satisfactorily. He said that Gupta was asked to use a medicine for local application and, once the eye was healed after a week, Mitomycine-C (an injection converted into eye drops) for two weeks. This, he added, was prescribed to prevent recurrence of Pytreygium. Dr Pal continued that Gupta was told to use it thrice daily and verbally warned that its overuse for over two weeks could be harmful.
According to Dr Pal, Gupta did not pay heed: the patient did not return for further check-ups to him, continued using the eye drops, and took treatment from other doctors. Only in March 1994 did Gupta return to Dr Pal.
In August 2006, the Delhi commission held the doctor guilty of "limited negligence" and ordered him to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation. It noted that the fact that Gupta could not be excused for "contributory negligence" was a mitigating circumstance for awarding the compensation.
Nevertheless, dissatisfied with the damages, Gupta filed an appeal for enhancement.
The national commission observed this month that since the doctor had converted just one vial of Mitomycine-C injection into eye drops the indication was for its limited use for about two weeks and not several months. "It was under these circumstances that the state commission held the respondent (doctor) guilty of only 'limited medical negligence' for not having put down in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine in the prescription slip," the national body said.
The aggrieved person, Delhi-based Devinder Singh Gupta, lost his eyesight in one eye after prolonged use of eye drops prescribed by Dr Vivek Pal. The national consumer commission upheld a state commission's ruling that said Dr Vivek Pal was guilty of 'limited medical negligence' since he had failed to put in writing the dosage and duration of the medicine. He was ordered to pay Gupta Rs 50,000 as compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment