In the absence of a specific law defining the rights of patients, consumers in India face a host of problems when it comes to healthcare. They often do not get adequate information about their illness or the treatment. In fact, there is very little recognition of the patients’ right to information or choice and this can also be seen in the way consent forms are obtained from patients for medical procedures. It’s equally difficult to get records pertaining to the treatment from hospitals and it is almost impossible to get a copy of all the papers signed by the patient or the relative.
However, thanks to consumers who refused to give up, today we have consumer court orders that define the rights of patients. Consumers can invoke them whenever their rights as patients are under threat.
Let me begin with the right to information. In the case of Dr Shyam Kumar vs Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya (RP No. 1486 of 2001), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made it clear that a doctor was duty bound to inform the patient about the details of the disease afflicting him, the various alternatives available and the risks involved in the proposed treatment.
In the case of Dr V.K. Ghodekar vs Sumitra Prahlad Korgaonkar (RP No. 1727 of 2002), the highest consumer court in the country upheld the right of the patient to all vital information pertaining to the drugs prescribed by the doctor, including contraindications.
Another important order delivered in the case of Shri S.R. Shivaprakash vs Wockardt Hospital, Mumbai (OP No. 208 of 1993) placed an obligation on doctors and hospitals to provide the patient with all medical records pertaining to the treatment. In the case of Samira Kohli vs Dr Prabha Manchanda (2008, the Supreme Court made it known that the consent taken by hospitals before starting any medical procedure has to be an “informed consent”.
Similarly in its order in the case of Varadhan S. Nair vs Dr Remani Rajan ( P No. 123 of 1997), the national commission came down heavily on hospitals that resort to unnecessary surgeries, based more on commercial considerations than on the health of the patient.
In the case of Pravat Kumar Mukherjee vs Ruby General Hospital, the national commission ruled that denial of emergency treatment constituted gross negligence (OP No. 909 of 2002). A number of Supreme Court orders have also ensured that victims of road accidents and others requiring emergency care are not turned away by hospitals.