Kolkata, Nov 03, 2005
IANS
By Sujoy Dhar, Kolkata: In a crusade against medical
negligence he says is rife in India, an NRI scientist
based in the US has challenged the West Bengal government
in the Supreme Court for "shielding doctors
accused of medical negligence".
Kunal Saha, a noted AIDS vaccine researcher at
the Children's Hospital and Ohio State University
at Columbus, Ohio, launched his fight against medical
negligence after his wife died in a city hospital
in 1998.
And in the past seven years, his case has gone
from the lowest to the highest courts in India.
But now the Supreme Court is set to start final
hearing in the case in February.
The case came on a writ petition challenging West
Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya's statement
in July that doctors could not be arrested without
prior approval of a medical committee in cases of
alleged negligence.
The lawsuit was filed in July by People for Better
Treatment (PBT), an organisation set up by Saha
and comprising doctors and other professionals.
"Rather than trying to bring justice to the
defenceless victims of medical malpractices, the
chief minister issued a directive not to arrest
and charge any errant doctor under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) without the prior approval of a special
'medical committee'," Saha told IANS.
"The constitution does not give a chief minister
the right to provide immunity against IPC to members
of a particular profession. Our petition highlights
the issue," said Saha.
"Seven years ago, on May 28, a young life
(his wife Anuradha, a child psychologist) was needlessly
lost due to blatantly wrong therapy by several so-called
'eminent' doctors in the city.
Saha later formed PBT to make his crusade into
a mass movement.
He has filed cases against three doctors and the
AMRI hospital where Anuradha was treated before
being shifted to the Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai
where she died from the TEN (Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis)
syndrome.
Besides, Saha had also filed a whopping Rs.770
million compensation case at the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NDCRC) in New Delhi
against the hospital.
Saha, who has left for the US, will be back in
India later this month when the NDCRC case comes
up between Nov 16 and 18. He has pledged to donate
the entire money towards betterment of healthcare
in India if he wins the case.
Saha also accused the Indian Medical Association
(IMA) of misinterpreting earlier judgments of the
Supreme Court.
"The association claims that the apex court
had barred police from arresting doctors for criminal
negligence. On the contrary, the court had categorically
ruled that the internationally-accepted Bolam principle
would be followed by our judiciary as well."
The Bolam principle states that a doctor can be
charged with "criminal negligence" if
he acts in a manner not followed by other "responsible"
medical bodies and if the treatment results in a
loss of life.
Doctors in face-off over new
institute
Calcutta, April 29, 2005
The telegraph,
Weeks before the showdown between physicians Sukumar
Mukherjee and Kunal Saha gets underway in the Supreme
Court, the two doctors are involved in a confrontation
over a new medical institute, headed by Mukherjee.
Saha, who had charged Mukherjee with negligence
leading to the death of his wife Anuradha over a
decade ago, has approached the Medical Council of
India (MCI) with another complaint against the veteran
doctor.
The NRI doctor founder and president of
People for Better Treatment, an organisation that
fights medical negligence has alleged that
the newly-formed Indian Institute for Medical Technology
(IIMT) does not have the necessary permission from
the MCI.
There is no denying that there is legal as
well as moral obligation for any new medical institute
to obtain permission from the appropriate division
of the MCI before offering any course or training
module for doctors. However, IIMT never obtained
the required permission from the MCI before opening
or offering medical courses for doctors, Saha
has stated in his complaint to the medical council.
He also said in his complaint that since Mukherjee
will stand trial in the apex court, he must be removed
as president of IIMT.
The high court had earlier acquitted the veteran
doctor in the negligence case.
C.K. Chatterjee, secretary and convener of IIMT,
said the institute was started after clearing all
legal hurdles.
Kunal Saha spoke to me from the US. I told
him that we would not remove Mukherjee or ask him
to resign. Saha might not know that permission from
the MCI is not mandatory for starting a certificate
course for doctors. We are not awarding any degree
or diploma, Chatterjee added.
We got in touch with the government and there
does not seem to be a problem on the legal front,
he continued.
IIMT, which is located in Joka, offers a three-month
certificate course for doctors in handling of medical
equipment.
Recently, a mannequin was brought to the institute
from the National Medical College and Hospital for
practical classes.
Our focus is to show doctors, especially
the younger group, better ways to handle crisis
and improve healthcare, especially in critical situations,
said Chatterjee.
The course teaches doctors the correct ways to
handle ECG, multi-parameter monitor, pulse oxymeter,
defibrillator and ventilator, among a host of other
equipment.
The faculty of IIMT comprises heads of departments
of various hospitals.
We have tried to rope in the best available
doctors for the course. We simulate critical situations
to help doctors deal with them better in real life,
Chatterjee signed off.
Calcutta HC rejects appeal by
Dr Kunal Saha
Calcutta , April 30, 2003
PTI
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday rejected an
appeal by NRI doctor Kunal Saha for removal of Dr
Ashok Choudhury from the West Bengal Medical Council's
Disciplinary Committee.
The committee dealt with Saha's complaint that
three reputed Kolkata doctors -- Dr Baidyanath Haldar,
Sukumar Mukherjee and Abani Roy Choudhury -- had
been negligent in treating his wife Anuradha leading
to her death in 1998 when on a visit to the metropolis.
A division bench comprising Justice Ashok Ganguly
and Justice Hrishikesh Mukherjee declined to interfere
with the June 18, 2002 decision of the Medical Council
appointing Dr Ashok Choudhury to the disciplinary
committee.
Saha feared not getting a fair judgment from the
committee alleging that Dr Choudhury was biased
against him.
The NRI doctor had filed the appeal against an
earlier high court order vide which Justice Kalyan
Jyoti Sengupta had rejected Saha's plea for removal
of Dr Choudhury, who is also the president of the
West Bengal Medical Council.
The Medical Council has already declared that the
three doctors were not to be held responsible for
Anuradha's death.
Doctors in aid of their tainted brethren
Subhayu Banerjee
13.06.2002
Strange are the ways of justice in India. Here,
if a complaint against any professional service
is to be lodged, it has to be lodged with the statutory
body of the respective service discipline. The members
of the body, who are themselves persons of a particular
profession, would proceed against someone belonging
to their own profession. Really a strange thing.
As a result of such an arrangement, in most cases,
it is seen, that the affected party seldom gets
any justice. The offender usually go scot-free.
Readers may be wondering why I have indulged in
such vague discussions with any concrete matter.
I am speaking about the doctor-patient relationship
that has hit the lowest ebb following the war-like
attitude of the doctors in response to the indictment
of two of their brethren. In India if a patient
is subjected to deliberate negligence (which is
a norm nowadays rather than an exception), he or
she is required to lodge a complaint with the respective
State chapter of Indian Medical Council. Here, is
a panel of doctors would then decide the fate of
their professional colleague. A ridiculous arrangement
indeed. In most cases it was seen that the doctors
went scot-free killing more and more patients with
impunity.
Gone are the days, when a doctor was considered
a good Samaritan of the area. Even during the decade
of 70s, doctors were available throughout the night.
Nowadays, doctors are loath to leave the comfort
of the confines of their homes at night.
True, doctors are not expected to render charitable
service throughout their lifetime, but they are
at least expected to pay attention to those from
whom they are charging fees. Fees have skyrocketed
in recent years, and the service have taken a nose-drive.
Taking commissions for referring to nursing homes,
or diagnostic centres are commonplace phenomena
and no one raises an eyebrow if one hears of commissions.
Yet, the doctors speak of deteriorating patient-doctor
relationship. Cant they indulge in some degree
of self-introspection?
Dr. Kunal Saha managed to mount the insurmountable.
In 1998, his wife died due to the negligence of
two doctors. He filed three cases against the doctors,
who were responsible for his wifes death.
One case was filed regarding claims with the consumer
court, the other was a complaint with the West Bengal
Medical Council and the last one was a case of criminal
negligence, a criminal case filed against the three
doctors. The doctors tried their level best to thwart
the probe.
But perseverance and money-power of Dr. Kunal Saha
finally paid off. Dr. Saha staked his fortune to
take his fight to a logical conclusion. And he succeeded.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate found the two doctors
of the accused trio, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr.
Baidyanath Halder, were held guilty of negligent
and inappropriate treatment.
Dr. Abani Roychowdhury was acquitted for lack of
evidence. The verdict of the court literally opened
a Pandoras box. The very next day of the pronouncement
of judgement saw thousands of people thronging the
organisation floated by Dr. Kunal Saha, People For
Better Treatment, to seek advice to redress their
grievances.
The supentine queue to seek advice was evidence
enough of the peoples disillusionment with
the medical profession. Yet, people have to go the
doctors. The doctors would charge high fees and
then neglect the patient.
Nowadays, doctors hardly attend to house calls,
because the ailing patient may not be able to afford
high fees. The nursing homes would charge according
to their own will, but pay scant regard to the service.
In most cases, even the records are not handed over
to the unsuspecting patients relative. We
say that the magic healers play with the faith of
the people but are doctors any different? Perhaps
they know the answer.
The doctors, instead of going all out to defend
the accused, should do well to put their own house
in order. Only then would they have the moral right
to defend the indefensible. Till then, should the
patients allowed to suffer? I dont have the
answer.