Clipped from: https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/doctor-liable-to-penalty-for-causing-disability-124021800585_1.html
The National Commission observed that evidence indicated Dr Gupta was conducting private practice while employed with a government Primary Health Centre, which was a serious misconduct
Representative Picture
Ajeet Kumar, an 11-year-old 8th grader, broke his hand on December 29, 2003. When taken to Dr Anirudh Prasad Gupta’s private clinic in Rasara, the doctor was found to be unavailable. The staff directed him to a hospital in Mau where Dr Gupta practised. Kumar received treatment there and his hand was cast in plaster. He stayed in the hospital until January 18, 2004, paying around Rs 10,000 to Dr Gupta. After being discharged, Kumar visited Dr Gupta at the Mau hospital for follow-ups, spending an additional Rs 6,000 on treatment.
As the boy’s condition deteriorated, the father requested a referral to a better hospital in Varanasi for treatment, but his request went unheeded until an MLA from Chilkahar intervened. Dr Gupta then referred the child to Dr A K Roy at Shyama Hospital, where he was informed that an amputation would have to be performed to save the child’s life. He had to pay Rs 10,000 upfront after which the amputation was performed. He incurred an additional Rs 5,000 on treatment.
Later, Kumar filed a joint complaint against Dr Anirudha Gupta and the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of the Uttar Pradesh government’s Primary Health Centre (PHC). This consumer complaint was filed through his natural guardian and father, Janul Ram. It was alleged that Dr Gupta was supposed to be serving as a medical officer at the PHC but he was carrying on private practice and diverting patients for his personal gain. It was also alleged that Dr Gupta had been negligent in treating the child, due to which amputation had become necessary, leading to a permanent handicap. A total compensation of Rs 4.2 lakh was claimed under various heads.
Dr Gupta contested the complaint. He refuted the allegation that he was carrying on private practice in Rasara as well as Mau. He disputed the authenticity of some documents such as the receipts which were produced to show that he had treated the child. He even denied being aware of the incident or injury to the child. The PHC did not bother to contest the complaint.
After considering the rival contentions, the District Forum allowed the complaint on June 15, 2010, ordering Dr Gupta to pay Rs 30,000 towards refund of fees and expenses, Rs 50,000 for causing 65 per cent physical disability as certified by the competent authority, the CMO, Rs 17,000 towards mental harassment, and Rs 3,000 towards the cost of the case. A period of 60 days was given for compliance. A delay would attract 12 per cent interest.
Dr Gupta challenged this order before the Uttar Pradesh State Commission, which observed that there was no enmity or other reason for blaming Dr Gupta for a genuine incident.
It observed that the reasoning given was sound in law and logic and dismissed the appeal.
Dr Gupta then filed a revision petition. The National Commission noted that the evidence showed Dr Gupta was employed by the government at the Primary Health Centre. It also observed that handwritten documents such as prescriptions which had been written by Dr Gupta for other private patients had not been disputed. The National Commission agreed that this constituted a serious act of misconduct.
The National Commission also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co that concurrent finding of fact cannot be challenged in revision proceedings. Accordingly, by its order of February 7, 2024, delivered by J. Rajendra, the National Commission dismissed Dr Gupta’s petition and upheld the decision given in the patient’s favour.
The writer is a consumer activist
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
aniltikotekar4sme.com 