In hospitals, small lapses can lead to seismic consequences. A routine procedure, an overlooked signature, a life lost—and suddenly, everyone’s accountability is under the microscope. This case serves as a sobering reminder of the legal weight carried by informed consent, especially when the procedures veer beyond routine. It’s not just about saving lives anymore—it’s also about safeguarding decisions.
Irrefutable Facts
The patient was under the care of the surgeon on an OPD basis at the hospital for the treatment of Tuberculosis and Thyroid. After a week, the patient was also treated for fever, abdominal pain, and bloating of the abdomen; was diagnosed with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis; was put on anti-Koch’s treatment for a week, but did not show significant improvement.
The patient was then admitted to the hospital. During hospitalization, several blood investigations and abdominal CT scans were performed, based on which Ascites tapping and fluid analysis was done.
Investigations revealed typhoid positive, and fluid analysis revealed no malignancy. The patient underwent an omental biopsy through laparoscopy under General Anaesthesia (GA).
Post-intervention, the patient developed anaesthesia-associated complications and was shifted to the ICU of another hospital for further management. The patient died at the other hospital.
Patient’s family filed a complaint. It was alleged that ascitic fluid taping was performed without obtaining consent of the patient or her attendants.
Doctors’ Plea
The doctors and hospital stated in defence that ascitic fluid tapping was performed after obtaining oral consent from the patient.
Court’s Observations
The court held that oral consent for ascites tapping was not legally valid. Further, even the consent for laparoscopy under GA was not proper and was taken without explaining the pros and cons and the available alternatives to the patient. The court held that this was negligence, and hence, the surgeon, anaesthetist and hospital were all held accountable.
Prevention Is Better Than Cure
Inform the pros and cons of the intervention as well as the available alternatives to the patient / attendants during pre-intervention counselling, and after that, take written informed consent. For all non-routine invasive procedures, written consent must be taken.
Source : Gopal Krishsna Bhagbirath Purohit v/s Dr. Mukesh Chaudhary & Ors.
Get 7 days online access of this case’s abstract and its complete judgment for INR 250
Subscribe to this Case