Medical negligence by ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha, and homeopathy doctors: A cross-sectional study of Indian national consumer court judgments
Aakash Sethi, Kalpita ShringarpureObjectives
The Supreme Court (SC) has declared the practice of a person practicing a system of medicine they are not trained in as illegal and negligent. An analytical study on cases of negligence against ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha, and homeopathy (AYUSH) doctors was absent, and hence this study was undertaken. National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can compensate patients alleging medical negligence. We aimed to analyze cases of medical negligence against AYUSH filed in the NCDRC to determine the nature of verdicts, compensation awarded, and prescription trends.
Material and Methods
This is a cross-sectional descriptive analysis. Judgments were accessed from SCC Online using a keyword search. Qualitative data were represented as a percentage, and Quantitative data as median with interquartile range (IQR) due to skewness. Mann Whitney U test was used to compare compensation awarded based on clinical outcome, verdict type, and route of drug administration.
Results
Twenty cases met the inclusion criteria. Most of the cases were ruled against AYUSH practitioners in favor of the patient (16), out of which practitioners were held guilty of Negligence (35%), followed by deficiency of service (25%). Median (IQR) compensation awarded was 7.5 Lakhs (1.95–7.12). The most common drug prescribed by AYUSH doctors was a steroid [4, 17%], and the most common route overall was parenteral [14, 70%]. The court did not award statistically significantly higher compensation based on clinical outcome (survived with or without disability) of the patient (U = 27, p = 0.29).
Conclusion
The proportion of AYUSH doctors prescribing modern medicine was 85%. A significant majority of negligence cases against AYUSH practitioners involved the unauthorized prescription of modern allopathic medicines, particularly steroids administered parenterally. While courts consistently penalized cross-practice, the compensation awarded was generally lower than claimed. Practitioners must strictly adhere to their authorized system of medicine to avoid liability.