An ayurveda doctor can’t practise allopathy. Period

Pushpa Girimaji

Six months ago, we moved house and I was looking for a doctor close by. On a neighbour’s recommendation, I took my mother for treatment of a bad cold, cough and fever to a neighbourhood doctor. Before he wrote the prescriptions, I told him that my mother was severely allergic to certain formulations and gave him the list. He assured me that he would not prescribe any of those but did not keep this promise. That resulted in my mother suffering from severe drug reactions, eventually leading to her demise. It was only later when we consulted another doctor that I came to know he had prescribed drugs she was allergic to. I also came to know later that this doctor was trained in the ayurvedic system of medicine, but practiced allopathy. Can I take up this issue before the consumer court? What kind of evidence will I need?

You can certainly file a complaint against the doctor, seeking damages for the death of your mother. In order to do that, you need, as crucial evidence, the doctor’s prescription. This will not only show him prescribing allopathic medicines, instead of the ayurvedic medicines that he is trained to prescribe, but also medications that have chemicals to which your mother was allergic to and about which you had warned the doctor. You can also attach the opinion of the doctor who informed you about the drugs having the said chemicals. You can also indicate the presence of these chemicals in the prescribed drugs by taking pictures of the contents mentioned on the package. It would be good to attach the opinion of a medical practitioner who may have treated your mother earlier and was aware of her allergies.

You also need to show that the doctor is not a registered medical practitioner in the allopathic system of medicine. For this you have to write to the State Medical Council and their reply, stating that the doctor who treated your mother is not registered with them. That would constitute essential evidence. Finally, I must say that the Supreme Court, in Poonam Verma Vs Ashwin Patel case, had said in May 1996 that the mere act of practising a system of medicine that one is not qualified constitutes ‘negligence per se’ and when a person is guilty of negligence per se, no further proof of negligence is required.

Can you please share details of this case?

This case has its origin in the treatment of 35-year-old Pramod Verma by a doctor, Ashwin Patel, for fever. Initially, he treated Verma for viral fever and subsequently typhoid. When his condition deteriorated, he suggested that he be hospitalised. He was first admitted to a private nursing home and later shifted to a bigger hospital, where he breathed his last. The main issue here was whether Dr Patel, qualified in the homeopathic and ayurvedic systems of medicine and registered with the Homeopathy Council, could have prescribed allopathic medicine.

The Supreme Court pointed out that in order to practice allopathy, one has to be qualified in that system and registered with the State Medical Council. In the absence of such registration as required under the law, Dr Patel was not qualified to practice in that system. “A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan,” said the Supreme court. And this fact was adequate to hold the doctor negligent and award compensation, the Court held.

“Negligence,” the SC said, “has many manifestations — it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, wilful or reckless negligence or negligence per se....” And here the doctor, having practised allopathy, without being qualified in that system, was guilty of negligence per se. “Where a person is guilty of negligence per se, no further proof is needed,” the apex court held, while awarding compensation and costs to the widow. The SC also ordered that the judgement be sent to the Maharashtra Medical Council and the Medical Council of India for examining the feasibility of initiating appropriate action against the doctor.