A doctor admitted his ailing father in the hospital he was employed with. Kidney function tests were performed, blood urea and serum creatinine values were reported abnormally high. The attending nephrologist advised urgent dialysis, but it could not be performed as the dialysis technician was not available.

The patient, in his late seventies, was taken to a nursing home for dialysis. One unit of packed red blood cell (PRBC) was requisitioned from the first hospital. However, the blood bank officer denied the request as the requisition protocol was not in order.

The patient suffered hypo-tension and slipped into coma. He was taken to yet another nursing home, but died there next day. The cause of death was pneumonia with multi-organ failure and end-stage kidney & cardiac failure.

The deceased patient’s son-doctor sued the first hospital and alleged that despite availability of dialysis machine, hospital could not provide the life-saving treatment-procedure. He further alleged that the hospital refused to issue PRBC even though it was already paid for and was reserved for the patient.

The Commission perused medical records of the hospital and nursing homes. It made following crucial observations:

“Patient’s son is himself a doctor, worked in hospital and was aware of the available facilities. It is not a multi-specialty hospital and arrangement for regular dialysis was not possible at the time. Moreover, the blood needs to be requisitioned as per guidelines and format laid down by the National Aids Control Organization (NACO) and West Bengal State AIDS Prevention and Control Society”.

“Admittedly, the blood bank has strictly followed the NACO guidelines. Although the blood was already cross matched and reserved, the patient was shifted to nursing home and therefore, it was mandatory to send fresh requisition form in the prescribed format. Thus, fresh blood samples of patient were needed for cross matching before issue of blood”.

The case against hospital was dismissed. The question is, patient’s son, a doctor by profession working in the hospital he went against, should have known better? It’s up to you – the reader – to decide. 

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 9th February, 2023.