LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday urged the Punjab Government and the Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC) to guarantee that healthcare businesses do not function on interim licenses for an indefinite duration.
“They are to specify a time frame within which these establishments must acquire regular licenses,” the court determined.
In a comprehensive verdict, Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh gave five directions for the future after hearing the case of a paralyzed woman who had been taken to Prime Care Hospital in Faisalabad to give birth.
“The Commission must enhance its capacity to fulfill its duties under the PHC Act, and the government is directed to allocate necessary funds for this purpose,” according to the judge.
He further added that the Commission shall “immediately develop standards to regulate healthcare services related to C-section procedures in consultation with a technical advisory committee, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Pakistan (SOPGP), the Pakistan Society of Anesthesiologists (PSA), and other stakeholders.”
Statements/reports detailing the number of C-sections performed by consultants and medical facilities should be submitted every six months. All medical facilities and doctors whose rates are higher than the World Health Organization’s will be subject to a mandatory clinical audit by the Commission.
Extensive Case Study
For her delivery, Fareeha Kanwal reportedly went to Faisalabad’s Prime Care Hospital. After her admission, she was initially informed that the birth would be regular, but she was later operated on.
Upon regaining consciousness the following morning, physicians noticed that the lower part of her body was paralyzed. The examination revealed that she had lost control of her bowel and bladder and needed a catheter bag and enema to pass her waste.
Petitioner alleged medical negligence, maladministration, and misconduct on the part of PCH and its doctors in their handling of her delivery case, and she filed a complaint with the Healthcare Commission later.
Her partially useless epidural, delivered by an anesthesiologist, was disclosed. As a result, a second epidural was administered by a different respondent (an anesthesiologist). Meanwhile, the doctor had chosen to carry out a cesarean section. The panel took testimony from the parties and consulted one neurologist and two anesthetic experts during the pre-trial sessions. Unfortunately, the patient’s original surgery notes were not included in their medical record.
After a thorough investigation, however, the panel ruled that “the decision of the Consultant Gynecologist to perform the C-section on the petitioner was justified.”
The petitioner developed severe Radiculopathy-Plexopathy of the lumbar area, but the underlying cause of this condition could not be determined from the identical clinical data. The question of whether respondents 6 and 7 committed medical malpractice, and to what extent in giving epidural anesthetic to the petitioner, deserves more study.”
The Commission fined the hospital 300,000 rupees; if and when the money is recouped, the petitioner would receive 20,000 rupees. It also directed the PHC to improve its score on the MSDS Table to 70% within three weeks and take necessary action following the law upon failure.
After that, the petitioner contested the LHC order made by the commission.
Petition
She claimed in her appeal that the respondents intentionally or negligently destroyed the original operation notes in her file in order to avoid legal responsibility. Thus, they had broken the law, specifically section 201 PPC.
Therefore, the Commission had to order a FIR to be filed against them per section 26(2) of the PHC Act. She also argued that the fine levied against PCH was excessive in light of the offense it had committed and that the commission was obligated to find the doctors guilty of medical negligence before submitting their case to the PMC.
“It should, therefore, be increased from Rs. 300,000 to Rs. 500,000,” she added, adding that the PCH should be locked and forbidden from delivering any healthcare services.
However, the District Judge ruled that only five types of decisions can be appealed per Section 31 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act of 2010. That subsection does not apply to the petitioner’s appeal. In particular, a delinquent cannot file an appeal against a Commission order that establishes liability or increases a fine.
Later, the judge ruled that the petitioner’s appeal “was not maintainable” and thus threw it out.
