Medical council to decide on patient’s complaint

Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to take a decision on a patient’s complaint against MIOT hospitals. On a vacation to Chennai from USA in 2008, he alleged that medical negligence had caused him permanent disability, requiring continuous treatment for the past several years and expenditure of Rs 50,000 per month.

Disposing of a petition from the patient, Vijay Irudayaraj, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, however, made it clear that the order was not to be taken as a reflection of the quality of the services rendered by MIOT hospitals.

Petitioner’s counsel Vijayalakshmi K. Rajarathinam submitted that Vijay Irudayaraj, an NRI, vacationing in Chennai, found on March 9, 2008, that he was unable to get up from bed nor move his limbs. He was admitted to MIOT hospitals at 10 am but no doctor attended on him till 3 pm.His father took him to a private hospital where he underwent neuro surgery and became permanently disabled.

His complaint was that doctors at MIOT hospitals failed to make an appropriate diagnosis within the golden hour. MIOT hospitals contended that there was no medical negligence. The petitioner was given proper treatment but his father shifted him against medical advice. They also said with a stroke caused by intra-cranial bleeding, the ‘golden hour’ principle did not apply.

The TN Medical Council (TNMC), to whom the petitioner’s father forwarded the complaint, contended that it was not competent to enquire into allegations of misconduct against hospitals. The judge said the council had disciplinary control only over individual doctors.The contention that negligence per se may not amount to professional misconduct could not be accepted, the judge said.

Chapter 7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations lists certain acts of commission and omission on the part of a physician as constituting professional misconduct. “No prejudice will be caused to the MIOT hospital by directing the state medical council to consider the complaint of the petitioner. It is true that a period of more than six years has passed from the alleged act of negligence.

This delay is something which the petitioner may have to eventually pay for, in view of the fact that it was impossible for professionals to explain their professional conduct after such a delay. The medical council itself can take into account all these factors before taking a decision,” the judge added.