A Warning About Medical Accountability: Dadu v. Fortis:

Here’s a breakdown of my conclusions:

Firstly, the court’s findings clearly demonstrate a case of medical negligence. Dr. Ashok Seth (OP-2) proceeded with an elective angioplasty despite the patient’s pre-existing conditions and compromised lung function as indicated in the radiology reports. This decision despite the patient’s comorbidities directly contributed to the severe pulmonary edema that occurred shortly after the procedure began. Furthermore the continued administration of heparin despite clear signs of internal bleeding and falling platelet levels was a critical error. The medical records indicate a failure to heed multiple warning signs such as the patient being neurologically non-responsive and the presence of red blood cells in the urine. This failure to adjust treatment in light of the patient’s deteriorating condition is a clear breach of the standard of care.

Secondly, beyond individual errors this case reveals systemic failures within Fortis Escorts Heart Institute. The hospital’s inability to promptly diagnose and treat the patient’s brain hemorrhage highlights a lack of adequate protocols and resources including the absence of an on-site neurosurgical team. The delay in conducting a CT scan despite the patient showing signs of brain injury and convulsions and the subsequent delay in transferring the patient to a neurosurgical facility compounded the harm suffered by the patient. This is not just about one doctor’s oversight but a failure of the institution to provide timely appropriate care.

While the hospital argued that the patient and his daughter both doctors were aware of the risks and consented to the procedure, the court correctly asserted that this does not absolve the medical professionals of their responsibility to provide reasonable care. Informed consent cannot be a shield for negligent medical practice. The hospital’s duty to act in the patient’s best interest supersedes any perceived waiver of responsibility based on the patient’s or their family’s medical background.
The court’s award of Rs. 65 lakhs along with interest is a recognition of the extensive and irreversible harm suffered by Dr. Narendra Dadu. This compensation seeks to cover not only the financial losses such as medical expenses and loss of income but also the immeasurable cost of the patient’s pain, suffering and disability.

The case underscores that the legal system recognizes the importance of providing adequate redress for victims of medical negligence but also It acknowledges that the impact of such negligence extends to the patient’s family and loved ones. Also last but not the least this case serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of justice in medical negligence cases must extend beyond monetary compensation. There is a critical need for medical institutions to implement stringent protocols and ensure that they are adhered to consistently. There needs to be a change in attitude where medical professionals and institutions prioritize patient welfare. It is not just about following procedures but about applying clinical judgment and acting proactively. This case should be a catalyst for change emphasizing the importance of rigorous patient monitoring, prompt response to adverse events, and robust systems for early diagnosis and treatment of complications.