Straight from the Heart: Some Facts on Max-Fortis Cases

 Straight from the Heart: Some Facts on Max-Fortis Cases

IMA got an access to part inquiry reports in the Fortis and the Max case, respectively. Here are some excerpts which should also be known to the medical fraternity

Fortis case: IMA Notes Based on inquiry report

·         “The committee found that the patient was suffering from Dengue Shock Syndrome, not mere dengue fever”.

·         “The mortality is high ranging from 6 to 30%. Most deaths occur in children”.

·         “The Committee found that the family had to spent Rs. 15.00 lakh for emergency ICU treatment for 15 days, not for dengue fever”

·         “There is prima facie no evidence of negligence in the management of the child during her stay in the PICU.”

·         “It is unlikely that conducting MRI earlier would have affected the course of treatment.”

·         “There are no guidelines on how many consumables are to be used per day in a PICU patient. However, general guidelines state that a liberal use of consumables for example syringes, gloves etc. must be made to decrease the risk of hospital acquired infections in these patients.”

·         “After perusal of above statements, I am of opinion that the father of the baby Adya was well informed about the consequences of LAMA.”

·         “However, at the end of the complete documents in all cases, one original signature of the parents is there.”

·         “It is again reiterated, the consent for so-called LAMA was obtained from the parents of the victim at the strong insistence of the treating doctors who gave a professional opinion stating that the MRI Scan Report revealed irreparable brain damages. It is again repeated that the "cost of the treatment" was never a consideration or deterrent for the parents.”

IMA Comments

IMA is developing a LAMA policy so that these types of disputes do not occur when a case reaches a state of no recovery.

Max Case: Some excerpts from the government report

·         “.. report concluded that the hospital have not kept any proper temperature and vital sign monitor record of the period of comfort care provided to the live male newborn”

IMA Comments: Not keeping record is a misconduct and not a criminal offence.

·         “….committee also concluded that the staff nurses on duty were also at fault as they handed over the bodies of the newborns without any written direction from the pediatrician and they also missed the signs of life in the male newborn while handing over the 'body' to the attendants”

IMA Comments: The very fact they also missed signs of life confirms the newborn was clinically dead (when the brain is alive and heart can get revived later when the body temperature increases due to warmth. Clinical death period is 10 minutes in every death and up to 4 hours in hypothermia)

·         “WHEREAS, the committee also concluded that the hospital has entered the name of live male newborn baby in the still birth register.”

IMA Comments: This is a record keeping mistake and not criminal negligence.