Fo­rum fines doc­tor for not main­tain­ing med­i­cal record of pa­tient

Consumer Voice - - In The News -

For not main­tain­ing the med­i­cal record of a pa­tient ac­cord­ing to the Med­i­cal Coun­cil of In­dia guide­lines, a doc­tor has been or­dered to pay a com­pen­sa­tion of Rs 60,000 by the dis­trict con­sumer dis­putes re­dres­sal fo­rum of Chandigarh.

Vanita Ku­mar had ap­proached Dr Shanu­jeet Kaur, an ex­pert of in-vitro fer­til­iza­tion, at Man­gal Nurs­ing Home in De­cem­ber 2012 for treat­ment in view of her in­abil­ity to con­ceive. Af­ter ex­am­in­ing her and putting her through many tests, Dr Kaur as­sured her that she was phys­i­cally fit to un­dergo IVF treat­ment, and that she would con­ceive a child. On the doc­tor’s ad­vice, she got ad­mit­ted at a pri­vate hos­pi­tal to un­dergo IVF treat­ment.

Dur­ing the process of pick­ing the egg from the ovary, there was bleed­ing, but the pa­tient was re­as­sured that there was no need to worry. How­ever, af­ter self-re­search, the pa­tient came to know that if at the time of pick­ing up of egg bleed­ing starts, then it is as­sumed that the IVF op­er­a­tion had failed and the doc­tor could not do the em­bryo trans­fer.

Dr Kaur, how­ever, had car­ried out an em­bryo trans­fer. Af­ter six days, the pa­tient’s con­di­tion de­te­ri­o­rated; she started bleed­ing and had acute pain in her lower ab­domen, but was told that she was hav­ing acute gas­tri­tis. She then got her­self ad­mit­ted at the Gov­ern­ment Med­i­cal Col­lege and Hos­pi­tal, where she was di­ag­nosed with sec­ondary sep­ti­caemia, caused on ac­count of the IVF egg pick-up.

Fol­low­ing her dis­charge from the hos­pi­tal, the com­plainant filed a case in the con­sumer court, al­leg­ing med­i­cal neg­li­gence and de­fi­ciency in ser­vice. Dr Kaur de­nied there was any med­i­cal neg­li­gence.

The fo­rum also did not find any ev­i­dence of med­i­cal neg­li­gence dur­ing the IVF pro­ce­dure, but said there was de­fi­ciency in ser­vice be­cause Dr Kaur did not main­tain the med­i­cal record of the pa­tient ac­cord­ing to the guide­lines of the Med­i­cal Coun­cil of In­dia.

There­fore, the doc­tor was di­rected to pay Rs 50,000 for de­fi­ciency in ser­vice and Rs 10,000 to­wards lit­i­ga­tion cost within a pe­riod of 30 days at 12 per cent in­ter­est.

Banned pes­ti­cides in 52 veg­etable sam­ples from NCR farms: JNU study

Over 20 banned pes­ti­cides un­der the cat­e­gory of organochlo­rines (OCPs) have been found in pro­duce in Delhi-NCR in quan­ti­ties that ex­ceed the in­ter­na­tion­ally de­fined per­mis­si­ble lim­its, a study con­ducted by Jawa­har­lal Nehru Uni­ver­sity (JNU) on 52 veg­etable sam­ples found.

The study, pub­lished in the in­ter­na­tional jour­nal En­vi­ron­men­tal Science and Pol­lu­tion Re­search, also mea­sured health risk on the ba­sis of an­nual veg­etable con­sump­tion, age and body weight. The study found a high life­time can­cer risk in chil­dren and adults, which au­thors said was “se­ri­ous con­cern for Delhi pop­u­la­tion”. Ex­po­sure and health risks for chil­dren were found to be dou­ble that of adults, the au­thors of the study said.

Veg­etable sam­ples in­clud­ing radish, radish leaf, cau­li­flower, brin­jal, okra and smooth gourd were col­lected from Na­jaf­garh, Mehrauli, Sha­hadra, Alipur, Farid­abad, Ghazi­abad and Kan­jhawala in 2012, to iden­tify pes­ti­cide ex­po­sure in root, leafy and fruit-type veg­eta­bles.

Among the 20 in­ves­ti­gated OCPs, 17 were de­tected in all the veg­etable sam­ples with HCH – a com­bi­na­tion of pes­ti­cides called hex­achloro­cy­clo­hex­ane, which is a banned cat­e­gory of pes­ti­cides – and DDT, which is banned in agri­cul­tural prod­ucts. Re­searchers said di­rect spray or at­mo­spheric de­po­si­tion is the most com­mon path­way for con­tam­i­na­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.