The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that usage of fixed preprinted forms for ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ by hospitals is unfair, deceptive and amounts to unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This order is likely to have wide ramifications since most hospitals follow the pre-printed and fixed ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ format before carrying out any procedure on patients.
The apex consumer commission stated that a pre-printed, fixed ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ form, with blank spaces for limited select handwritten entries and for the signatures was used by the hospital.
The main body of the form is pre-printed and fixed. It can fit into any procedure, any doctor, and any patient, after filling up the blank spaces for the limited select handwritten entries and getting the signatures. The forms can thus be misused after filling up of blank spaces.
NCDRC asserted that this is administrative arbitrariness and one-sided high handedness, and noted that it was unfair and deceptive, on the part of the hospital.
It also imposed a cost of Rs10 lakhs on the hospital for this reason.
The Court said “The uniform use of this pre-printed and fixed ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ form on the part of the opposite party no. 1 (hospital) to be unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) of the act of 1986 and deem it just and appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the opposite party no. 1 (hospital), to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks of the pronouncement of the reasoned judgement, and to direct the opposite party no. 1 (hospital) to discontinue its said unfair trade practice with immediate effect”.
The Commission noted “However, we cannot ignore the peculiarity of the ‘informed consent’ in the instant case which needs prompt and proper rectification. It is pertinent to note that it is a pre-printed form- ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ having blank spaces for limited selective handwritten entries and for the signatures. The main body of the form is fixed pre-printed. Such consent form fits into any procedure, any doctor and any patient. Thus, it will take shape of informed consent if someone after filling up the blank spaces in handwriting and affixing the signatures of the patient and his sister as witness. This to be administrative arbitrariness and one-sided high handedness, and to be unfair and deceptive, on the part of the OP-1 (hospital); though the complainant has not been prejudiced in this particular case”.
The court however found no deficiency in service or medical negligence in the said case, based on the entire medical record, the affidavits of the opposing parties and the expert opinion of the medical board of Maulana Azad Medical College.
Case facts: In January 2010, a patient aged 65 years with some pain in the abdomen and related difficulties was rushed to a private hospital in abdomen department of Fortis Hospital , New Delhi.
Thereafter, due to financial difficulties he approached (opposing party 2), Dr. Anil Varshney at RG Stone Urology and Laparoscopy Hospital (opposing party 1) for further treatment.
Dr Varshney examined the patient and advised surgery, which was performed on January 13, 2010. Later, the patient approached the hospital with complaints regarding difficulties he faced after his surgery.
After examination, he was informed by the doctor that a complication occurred and was advised to go for natural healing. The Complainant then approached Indraprastha Apollo Hospital where he got admitted and took treatment from and incurred expenditure for the treatment but did not get completely cured. He again reverted to Fortis Hospital for the treatment and was visiting regularly.
As per the Complainant, he suffered negligent treatment, injury and complications because of RG Stone Urology and Laparoscopy Hospital and Dr. Anil Varshney, and moved before the Consumer Commission seeking compensation of Rs1,88,37,602/-.
The opposing parties denied the allegations and took preliminary objection of limitation as the instant complaint was filed in year 2018, after 8 years of cause of action, which happened in year 2010. They also presented that the Complainant had prior surgery of hernia and appendix with a history of tuberculosis and HIV.
Order- The Commission noted that the patient was suffering from HIV and skin cancer, and was fully aware about his immune-compromised status, despite which the doctor had operated the patient with all due care and reasonable skill. However, the Complainant with an ill intention published a story against the hospital in the ‘Hindustan Times’ to influence the court, in its attempt to coerce the hospital and influence emotionally for out-of-court settlement.
Despite the HIV positive status, the doctor operated on the patient with all due care and reasonable skill. However, the Complainant with his ill intention published a story against the hospital in the ‘Hindustan Times’ to influence the court.
Thus, the Complainant was trying to force the hospital and influence emotionally for out-of-court settlement. Considering the entirety, it is clear that the allegations of complainant are completely after thought based on assumptions, surmises and perverse beliefs. The complaint therefore is frivolous, bereft of merit and ill-conceived.
