The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, stated that the Consumer Protection Act should not be used as a ′halter around the neck′ of physicians, making them fearful of making professional judgments at critical times. The Commission relied on several precedents, including Chanda Rani Akhouri v. M.S. Methusethupathi Mithupathi and others, to emphasize that a doctor should not be liable for negligence if his diagnosis differs from that of another doctor or he treats the patient in a different way with a higher element of risk.

The Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, was assessing a complaint alleging medical misconduct on the part of physicians at Max Super Specialty Hospital in Delhi and seeking compensation in the amount of Rs. 20.33 crores. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was consulted for the complaints of fever, exhaustion, and blood spots or bruises on both his arms and legs. The platelet count was determined to be severely low, and there were additional indications that pointed to haemolytic anemia, which was subsequently verified by specialists.

Although the patient was admitted to the medicine department and his primary consultant was OP-2, it was claimed that after being diagnosed with a blood disease, he should have been promptly moved to the haematology department. It was claimed that OP-2 had purposefully kept the patient on medication in order to increase hospital expenditures and that the hospital′s physicians had been gambling on his life.

The complaint further claimed that the opposing parties engaged in billing malpractice, such as double billing for doctors visits and charging for tests that were not performed. The major claim was that there was a failure to detect the presence of schistosomes in peripheral blood smears (PBS), which resulted in a delayed diagnosis of MAHA and therapy.

In this case, the Commission recognized that OP-2 was an internal medicine expert with experience and that hematology was a vital aspect of medicine, so the former could treat the complaining patient. The Commission further reviewed the emails sent by the complainant to the three hematology specialists seeking opinions on his treatment and found that they were based only on the information given by the complainant, as the whole treatment record had not been sent.

As a result, the Commission was adamant that the patient was evaluated and treated in accordance with reasonable practice during his hospitalization. Thus, it is obvious that the complainant has proven only the duty of the hospital and physicians but has failed to prove the other components of medical negligence, namely dereliction or breach of duty of care and direct or proximate cause.

However, in light of the administrative flaws identified by the inquiry panel, such as double billing and doctor′s visits, the Commission instructed that the excess sum be refunded to the complainant.

(Source: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/consumer-cases/ncdrc-doctors-medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-fear-prosecution-affect-professional-decision-226710)