A day after the historic judgment in the Anuradha Saha death case, the doctors held guilty were not sure if they will get a refund of the additional amount they paid as compensation to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2011.
While two of the doctors - Dr Balaram Prasad and Dr Baidyanath Haldar - paid Rs 26 lakh each, senior medic Dr Sukumar Mukherjee had paid Rs 40 lakh. The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Balaram Prasad and Sukumar Mukherjee to pay Rs 10 lakh each while Baidyanath Haldar's penalty was fixed at Rs 5 lakh. AMRI Hospital, where Anuradha Saha had received a steroid overdose while being treated by the three doctors was asked to pay Rs 5.96 crore along with a 6% interest to be calculated from 1999. The judgment actually came as a relief to the doctors who were earlier made to pay a heavier fine.
"It's obviously a financial relief. I am due to receive a refund Rs 16 lakh, but I am not sure whom to approach for the money. My lawyer believes the AMRI Hospital will have to refund the additional amount. I am trying to find out more about the procedure but am still not sure," said Prasad.
Sukumar Mukherjee, too, was in the dark about the refund system. He has been in touch with his lawyer but Mukherjee failed to procure a copy of the judgment till Friday afternoon. "The best thing about the judgment is that I will get a part of the money back. But so far I have failed to find out if that will at all be possible. I guess it is mentioned in the judgment, so I am waiting for it," said Mukherjee.
Law expert Prabir Basu, however, said the doctors will have to file an "execution appeal" with the NCDRC for a refund. "Since the case was originally filed with the commission, the appeal has to be placed with them. The case had gone to the Supreme Court after the NCDRC had awarded a smaller compensation to Kunal Saha which the latter had disputed. It was the Supreme Court that had directed the NCDRC to determine the compensation amount that was again contested by Saha. The doctors, however, had to pay the fine two years ago. Since they had paid to the NCDRC, only the latter can return the additional amount," he said.
While the AMRI authorities refused to comment, Basu said the hospital may still seek a review of the Supreme Court order. "They can appeal for a review but in case the decision goes against them yet again, they will have to pay an even higher penalty for the interest will keep accruing," added Basu.
The landmark judgment evoked mixed reactions in the medical community. While some felt the decision will act as a wake-up call for both doctors and hospitals, others pointed out that the stiff penalty may prompt doctors to stick to safe treatment. "There are occasions when a doctor has to take a calculated risk. It may or may not work, but such measures are essential if patients' lives are to be saved. Now, this judgment will make doctors think twice before taking such steps. Eventually, most will refuse to go ahead with such measures that will affect treatment. I hope this judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court," said P K Nemani, Kolkata executive committee member of the Indian Medical Association.
Cardiac surgeon Kunal Sarkar felt it was time for both hospitals and individual doctors to be more accountable and transparent in their treatment practices and follow laid-down norms. "Unfortunately, we are still stuck with a primitive system in which norms and procedures remain secondary. Also, we need to activate peer groups like the IMA and state medical council and get them to try cases like these. Unfortunately, people have no faith on them and so they rush to the court at the drop of a hat," said Sarkar.
While two of the doctors - Dr Balaram Prasad and Dr Baidyanath Haldar - paid Rs 26 lakh each, senior medic Dr Sukumar Mukherjee had paid Rs 40 lakh. The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Balaram Prasad and Sukumar Mukherjee to pay Rs 10 lakh each while Baidyanath Haldar's penalty was fixed at Rs 5 lakh. AMRI Hospital, where Anuradha Saha had received a steroid overdose while being treated by the three doctors was asked to pay Rs 5.96 crore along with a 6% interest to be calculated from 1999. The judgment actually came as a relief to the doctors who were earlier made to pay a heavier fine.
"It's obviously a financial relief. I am due to receive a refund Rs 16 lakh, but I am not sure whom to approach for the money. My lawyer believes the AMRI Hospital will have to refund the additional amount. I am trying to find out more about the procedure but am still not sure," said Prasad.
Sukumar Mukherjee, too, was in the dark about the refund system. He has been in touch with his lawyer but Mukherjee failed to procure a copy of the judgment till Friday afternoon. "The best thing about the judgment is that I will get a part of the money back. But so far I have failed to find out if that will at all be possible. I guess it is mentioned in the judgment, so I am waiting for it," said Mukherjee.
Law expert Prabir Basu, however, said the doctors will have to file an "execution appeal" with the NCDRC for a refund. "Since the case was originally filed with the commission, the appeal has to be placed with them. The case had gone to the Supreme Court after the NCDRC had awarded a smaller compensation to Kunal Saha which the latter had disputed. It was the Supreme Court that had directed the NCDRC to determine the compensation amount that was again contested by Saha. The doctors, however, had to pay the fine two years ago. Since they had paid to the NCDRC, only the latter can return the additional amount," he said.
While the AMRI authorities refused to comment, Basu said the hospital may still seek a review of the Supreme Court order. "They can appeal for a review but in case the decision goes against them yet again, they will have to pay an even higher penalty for the interest will keep accruing," added Basu.
The landmark judgment evoked mixed reactions in the medical community. While some felt the decision will act as a wake-up call for both doctors and hospitals, others pointed out that the stiff penalty may prompt doctors to stick to safe treatment. "There are occasions when a doctor has to take a calculated risk. It may or may not work, but such measures are essential if patients' lives are to be saved. Now, this judgment will make doctors think twice before taking such steps. Eventually, most will refuse to go ahead with such measures that will affect treatment. I hope this judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court," said P K Nemani, Kolkata executive committee member of the Indian Medical Association.
Cardiac surgeon Kunal Sarkar felt it was time for both hospitals and individual doctors to be more accountable and transparent in their treatment practices and follow laid-down norms. "Unfortunately, we are still stuck with a primitive system in which norms and procedures remain secondary. Also, we need to activate peer groups like the IMA and state medical council and get them to try cases like these. Unfortunately, people have no faith on them and so they rush to the court at the drop of a hat," said Sarkar.
Saudi women have to be driven by male drivers
