The incident leading to Mr. Augustine Dike’s death happened between September 17 and 29, 2013, but the Dike family was able to obtain judgment on Thursday, April 8, 2021.

Ifeoma, in a sworn affidavit dated November 19, 2013, had alleged gross negligence, noting that Oraifo didn’t inquire about the medication history of her father before administering Gentamicin and Ampiclox on him.

She also claimed that the physician did not use correct medical channels or procedures to ascertain the complexities of the injuries sustained by the deceased in a car accident before he was made to undergo surgery, even when the doctor was aware of Dike’s diabetic status.

Ifeoma noted that necessary pre- and post-surgery observations were not made on time, and that the autopsy report revealed that her dad, Augustine Dike, died from pulmonary embolism.

She said that the autopsy report issued by another facility was contrary to Dr. Oriaifo’s report attributing the primary and secondary causes of Dike’s death to diabetes complications and fracture.

However, Ifeoma was countered by Jerry in a written statement dated December 7, 2020.
Recalling the circumstances that allegedly led to the death of his father, Jerry said that he took Augustine Dike to the Ajayi Oriaifo Memorial Hospital for medical treatment on the evening of September 17, 2013.

He said that the facts contained in the affidavit of Ifeoma were “false and misleading,” and that Dr. Oriaifo “personally attended” to his late father, “examined him and wrote his [medical] history.”

Jerry also stated that X-ray and other laboratory tests were done on the patient; that the blood sugar level of his late father was observed and that it was coming down on a daily basis during treatment.

According to the MDPDT charge sheet obtained by our correspondent, Jerry also maintained that insulin drug (injection) was never administered on Augustine Dike throughout his stay in the hospital; “that the blood sugar level was 113.3mg dl (considered normal) on September 25, 2013; that Dr. Oriaifo and his team performed a surgery on his father’s right thigh (femur), which was successful; that his late father was never catheterised because it was not necessary since he was urinating without difficulty; and that the doctors and nurses tried their best.”

Jerry claimed that his father did not die immediately, but four days after the surgery, and that his blood sugar level was properly controlled before and after the surgery, and was adjudged normal.

Presiding over the case, the chairman of the MDPDT, Prof. Abba Waziri Hassan, found Oriaifo, a consultant surgeon with the Ajayi Oriaifo Memorial Hospital, Benin City, Edo State, guilty of gross negligence, incompetence and malpractice.

The tribunal maintained that the conduct of Oriaifo, while attending to the now deceased Dike, “were manifestly incompetent” in the manner he assessed and managed the patient’s condition, and by that, conducted himself “infamously in a professional respect.”

The judgment further noted that Oriaifo was “manifestly incompetent and grossly negligent” in the management of Dike’s condition between September 17 and 29, 2013.
Hassan noted that the MDPDT found Dr. Oriaifo guilty of three counts, for which he pleaded “not guilty.”

According to the tribunal, Oriaifo’s offences contravene Section 16 (1) (a) and (2) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act CAP. M8, 2004 (as amended).

The ruling reads in part, “The tribunal members have read and carefully examined the issues raised in the respective final written address of both parties. We have also gone through the affidavit and other exhibits relied on by both parties and the oral evidence presented by the witnesses.

“The respondent is a competent surgeon. However, surgery was done under a sub-optimal environment, as there was no pre-operative evaluation by a specialist. More so, the patient was a known diabetic.

“Post-operative care was also sub-optimal. Given that embolism is a recognised complication even when all necessary precautions were taken, the respondent still needed to do more.

“From the fact of this case, it is clear that the urinary output was not monitored; no catheter was passed, and there were no prophylaxis. The post mortem shows that he died from embolism.

“The respondent did not give the patient the standard of care necessary in the circumstances the prosecution has therefore succeeded in proving all the three counts of the charge.”

Oriaifo was subsequently given a six-month suspension from practice.

Reacting to the development, a former president of the Nigerian Medical Association, Dr. Francis Faduyile, described the judgment as a landmark, noting that it would serve as a deterrence to others.

He noted that the judgment was not meant to protect the medical profession, but the public.

He stated, “This is so that you know that when you are being treated, you are treated cautiously and appropriately. You get the appropriate quality and the necessary decorum from professional members.

“Otherwise, anybody can do things at their whims and caprices. It will guard against such and make medical management and treatment better, and people will get things well. And that is one of the major reasons why medicine is still a very noble profession.”

The former NMA president said the MDPDT was at the level of a Federal High Court, and that it was a special court that tries doctors for malpractices and other professional offences.

Faduyile said though he was not privy to the details of Oriaifo’s offences, he was sure that due diligence must have been carried out before the tribunal arrived at its judgment.
He noted that the law was made for people to conduct themselves accordingly, adding that if the medical profession was allowed to be an open-ended thing, people would behave the way they feel.

“For a profession like medicine, we must be able to follow the dictates of the law and anybody found to have contravened the law should be made to face the consequences.

“It is this that has made the medical profession noble. With this, we can be sure of what patients and the general public are being given as management or treatment by members of the profession.”

The World Health Organisation said patients, especially those in low- and middle-income countries, should be protected from some aspects of poor healthcare by litigation relating to medical malpractices.

The WHO noted that such litigation can lead to financial compensation for patients who have suffered as a result of medical negligence and can encourage physicians to maintain at least basic standards of health care.

According to a report by a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Benin, Eric Okojie, titled ‘Professional Medical Negligence in Nigeria,’ generally, professional medical negligence or malpractice has been on the increase and needs to be addressed in terms of the attitude of law towards it for the protection of the patient.

Okojie in the report said that there was the need to make physicians liable as well as to secure punitive measures for any medical practitioner who, through carelessness, causes harm to a patient.

“Moreover, there is the need to caution medical practitioners who have sent many patients to their untimely graves in the course of their professional duties. It would, in addition, aid to restore people’s confidence in the medical profession.

“Increasingly, there is the need for patients to be protected from medical practitioners who no longer see their professional calling principally as that of saving lives, but as that of making money,” Okojie stated.

source: Punch