Private hospitals view patients like ATM machines: Allahabad High Court

Private hospitals use patients like ATM machines, the Allahabad High Court said on Thursday while refusing to quash criminal proceedings in a medical negligence case against a doctor [Dr Ashok Kumar Rai v State of UP and another].

Justice Prashant Kumar found that Dr. Ashok Kumar Kumar, the owner of a nursing home, had admitted a pregnant woman for surgery even in absence of an anesthetist, who arrived much later. The foetus was found dead by then.

The Court said that it has become a common practice for the hospitals to entice patients and call for the relevant doctor later.

“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,” the Court said.

It added that any medical professional, who carries out his profession with due diligence and caution, has to be protected but certainly not those who have opened nursing homes without proper facilities, doctors and infrastructure and entice patients just to extract money out of them.

The Court in the present case rejected the claim that family members had not agreed for the surgery at the right time.

This is a case of pure misadventure where the doctor admitted the patient and after taking a go ahead for operation from the patient’s family members, did not perform the operation on time as he did not have the requisite doctor to perform the surgery, it said.

“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.

Though the Court acknowledged that family members of a patient often look for “human factor” to blame in case of death, it stressed that protection to medical professionals can be applied only if the medical professional has carried out his duty skilfully as any other doctor would have done in the given circumstances.

The instant matter hinges on the second aspect as to whether the applicant had exercised reasonable care in providing medical service on time or he had acted carelessly, the Court 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,” it added.

The Court refused to rely on the Medical Board’s opinion in the case, stating that all the documents were not produced before it. The Board had favoured the doctor in this case.

“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,” it added while refusing to quash the proceedings. 

Meanwhile, the Court questioned the delay in disposal of the pending consumer case in the matter.

“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,” the single-judge said.

Senior Advocate IK Chaturvedi with advocate Shailendra Kumar Rai represented the petitioner.

Advocate SD Pandey appeared for the State.

Advocate SK Mishra represented the complainant.

[Read Judgment]