The Supreme Court has issued key directions to improve oversight of public hospitals, train medical staff and ensure timely redressal of patients’ complaints, while setting aside a Balochistan High Court judgment in a medical negligence case.
ISLAMABAD, Oct 20 (APP):The Supreme Court has issued key directions to improve oversight of public hospitals, train medical staff and ensure timely redressal of patients’ complaints, while setting aside a Balochistan High Court judgment in a medical negligence case.
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad decided the case involving Bibi Hanifa’s claim for compensation over alleged medical negligence. The court allowed her 2018 civil petition and connected civil appeal, also awarding her costs.
According to the 23-page detailed judgment, Bibi Hanifa was admitted to the District Headquarters Hospital in Pishin for the delivery of her eighth child. She underwent a caesarean section on November 20, 2007, but subsequently developed abdominal pain and fever. As her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to another hospital for further examination and treatment.
During a subsequent operation, medical sponges were found inside her abdomen. She maintained that they had been left there during the earlier surgery. Her newborn also died the day after birth.
To improve patient safety, the Supreme Court directed regular inspections and surprise visits to operating theatres in public and private hospitals, with action against violations. It ordered the establishment of an accessible and timely mechanism for handling medical negligence complaints, including complaint redressal desks in every hospital.
The court also directed regular training of doctors and nursing staff in patient safety and infection prevention, and required newly qualified doctors to work under the supervision of qualified surgeons.
The relevant authorities were directed to submit a compliance report through the Registrar within 90 days. Copies of the judgment were also ordered to be sent to the health department, the Prime Minister’s Office and the healthcare commission.
The court observed that the directions were comprehensive but not exhaustive, adding that the health secretary could issue further instructions as required.