‘Consumer rights bodies shouldn’t harass doctors’

VADODARA: In a scathing criticism of a consumer rights organization, the Gujarat state consumer forum while hearing a case of medical negligence observed that the role of voluntary consumer rights organisations is not to harass doctors or hospitals, but work for the development of consumerism.
It further said that to create an opinion with the help of so-called experts without proper information or data is something dangerous to the society. The observation was made while hearing the case filed by Jagrut Nagrik on the behalf of Dharmesh Purani who underwent kidney transplant at Bhailal Amin General Hospital (BAGH) in Vadodara in 2013.
The state consumer disputes redressal commission forum also added that everybody should act as a watchdog and try to eliminate those elements for co-ordination and healthy relationship among every part of the society.
Purani’s kidney transplant failed following which he filed a case in the forum against BAGH, the doctors who treated him and the insurance firms in 2014. The complaint said that Purani was suffering from kidney problem and was on dialysis since 2011. He then put his claim for kidney transplantation at Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad and in the meantime Purani met one of the opponent doctors who advised to take the kidney of one of the family members in blood relationship.
His father agreed to donate a kidney following which Purani was admitted in BAGH and the surgery for kidney transplant was done in October 2013. On the ninth day after the surgery, blood was noticed oozing following which it was treated surgically and the patient was discharged.
During the routine check-up later, the patient was told by one of the opponent doctors that the kidney transplant had failed. Purani was readmitted to the hospital in November 2013 and the transplanted kidney was removed.
The complainants said that despite spending such an amount, they gained nothing and Purani’s father was left with just one kidney. The complainant made several allegations and accused the opponents of medical negligence.
Purani prayed for a compensation of Rs 88.81 lakh with an interest rate of 18 per cent and cost of Rs 3 lakh for the complaint.
The opponents argued that they gave the best available treatment to the patient and his father and didn’t breach any protocol of professional medical services. The opponents also said that consent of the patient was taken for all the treatment.
After hearing both the sides, the forum said that Purani and his father were under experienced hands for treatment and it is unfortunate that the transplanted kidney did not respond as desired. Quick action was taken at the end of the opponent to combat post-operative complication therefore this is not the fit case for the so-called post-operative medical negligence.
The forum dismissed the case for want of sufficient evidence as both Purani and his father died during the trial.
“We will appeal against the order in the national commission,” said P V Moorjhani, managing trustee of Jagrut Nagrik.