AICL Cases 1999

ALLEGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHED:

Complainant operated upon for family planning -Gave birth to child after it -Complaint Failed to prove negligence -Operation cannot guarantee 100% success -Always 5 to 6% failures -Allegations of negligence not established.
Rajbai v. Madhya Pradesh Shasan Sachiv, Lok Swasthya Avam Pariwar KaIyan
Vibhag & Ors. Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 578

BREACH OF ANY DUTIES GIVES RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE TO PATIENT:

Negligence in Tort- person ready to give medical advice- Possess skill and knowledge - Consulted by patient, owes him certain duties -Breach of any duties gives right of action I for negligence to patient.
Prasanth S. Dhananka v. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences National C.D.R.C.
I (1999) CPJ 43.

CAESAREAN OPERATION CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT QUALIFIED ANAESTHETIST MINORITY VIEW:

Caesarean operation cannot be performed without qualified Anaesthetist -Indications suggest foetus dead -Risk factor all the more -Opposite party justified in waiting for arrival of any qualified Anaesthetist -Complainant fully aware, immediate operation not possible, could have taken patient to any other hospital- No complaint regarding treatment given - No material to hold opposite party negligent or deficient in service -
Complaint dismissed.
K. Murugesan & Anr. v. Dr. S. Sarala Devi Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 542.

CARDIAC ARREST CANNOT BE PREDICTED:

Operation -Cardiac Arrest -Patient, A Boy of 13 Years Died -Deficiency in Service - Compensation- Hole in eardrum -Slight discharge of watery liquid -Operation advised. -patient entered coma stage before commencement of surgery -Heart beat stopped - Resuscitation done -Neuro specialists contacted immediately -Patient died -All necessary amenities provided in hospital -Cardiac arrest cannot be predicted -No negligence / deficiency proved.
Sambi Reddy v. KK.R. Ent Hospital & Research Institute Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 165.

CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT:

Patient admitted with hernia -Operated upon by opposite parties -Expired -Opposite parties adhered to conventional treatment -Doctors cannot be accused of deficiency in service.
Sawan Kumar & Five Ors. v. Dr. Surinder KatyaI Haryana S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ226.

DELAY IN OPERATION:

Delay in Operation -Compensation -Advanced stage of pregnancy -Acute labour pain Opposite party found immediate operation necessary -Delay of four long hours -Opposite party waited for her Anaesthetist husband -No attempt to get assistance of local Anaesthetist- Delay in opposite party's husband, coming from Madras, Operation conducted with the help of local Anaesthetist -Child in womb died, removed during operation -Delay in doing operation reason of death -Operation conducted without having blood for transfusion -Patient lost about 300 c.c. blood -No blood available -Patient taken to Madras in ambulance -Died on the way -Opposite party guilty of callous negligence -Complainant entitled to compensation along with interest.

K. Murugesan & Anr. v. Dr. S. Sarala Devi Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C I (1999) CPJ 542

Complainant pregnant -Admitted in hospital -Gave birth to a male child by normal delivery on 17.12.1995- Pain and swelling in stomach -: - No proper treatment given - Discharged on 19.12.1995,- Taken to another hospital- Treated till 26.12.1995 -compensation claimed -Complainant failed to show how opposite party negligent in service -No one from other hospital examined -No deficiency proved on part of opposite party.

Rajeswari v. Antony Hospital & Anr. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 255.

Proper Treatment not Given -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -, Complainant's daughter admitted for fever -Only one dialysis for one and half hours given -Blood urea and creatinine increased -No more dialysis given -Opposite party failed to give proper treatment to bring down blood urea and creatinine -Patient died -Compensation claimed -Serious condition of patient not allowed more than one haemodialysis -All other necessary treatment given to bring down blood urea and creatiI:1ine- No deficiency in service on part of opposite party proved.

C. Sankara Narayanan v. Meenakshi Mission H&R Centre Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 683.

EXCESSIVE DIALYSIS GIVEN

Excessive Dialysis Given Which Caused Convulsions -Deficiency in Service -Compensation- Complainant's son admitted in opposite party's Hospital for treatment of renal failure -More dialysis given than actually needed -Developed fits, died -Compensation claimed for gross negligence -Patient previously treated for convulsions with Epsolin / Eptoin 100, mg. daily -Tablet given specifically for treatment of epilepsy -Patient had epilepsy previously not disclosed to opposite party -Convulsions not caused by excessive dialysis by opposite party -No deficiency in service on part of opposite party.

A.J. Devarajan v. Management of the Guest Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 691.

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED ABOUT INFERIOR QUALITY OF PLATES:

Legs of complainant fractured in accident -Opposite party operated complainant -Fixed plates in the legs -Plates broken after six months -Complaint filed alleging negligence -Dismissed -Appeal -No expert evidence produced about inferior quality of plates -Medical negligence is not proved.

Sardool Singh v. Muni Lal Chopra & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 64.

POST OPERATIVE CARE:

Complainant's husband treated for Hydrocele problem -Operated -No Doctor to attend patient during post operative period -Injection given by Duty Nurse without test -Patient collapsed -Defence plea, patient suffered Myocardial Infarction or Cerebro-Vascular accident- No evidence to show alleged negligence -Complainant failed to satisfactorily prove alleged negligence/ deficiency in service.

Packia Retnam @ A.P. Ratna Singh v. Dr. N.C. Thanu, M.S. Tamilnadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 314.

FAMILY PLANNING OPERATION:

Family Planning Operation - Patient Died - Compensation - Patient taken to the operation theatre in good condition - Surgeon engaged to do the operation - Patient developed pain during operation - Local anaesthesia given had not necessary effect - Patient died due to negligence of surgeon. Complainant lost consortium of wife and mother of his children - Entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with 18% interest.

Ravi v. Or. (Mrs.) Usha Rani & Ors. Tamil Nadu S.C D.R.C. I (1999).

HEART BLOCK:

Complainant suffered heart block -Regained consciousness -Pacemaker implanted in November, 1995- Started working regularly -Erosion commenced around pacemaker in February, 1996- Instead reporting to PGI complainant entered the Command Hospital- Complainant went to London and treated there -Pacemaker infected -Part of screw driver left behind -Screw driver not brought by complainant along with pacemaker -Non production of material piece of evidence goes against complainant -Mere allegation or suspicion, however strong may be cannot take shape of proof- Complainant discl1arged from PGI in satisf;:1ctory condition -Post implantation injection a well known risk of pacemaker implaptation -No deficiency on part of doctor established.

Commander Solzan Singh Sandhu v. Dr. H.K. Bali & Anr; Chandigard S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 392.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL: CASE NOT MAINTAINABLE:

Government Hospital - Patient discharged before fully cured, died - Treatment free of charge - No service rendered for consideration - Person not become consumer by making payment for patient - Case not maintainable.

Fakir Mohan Bhuyan v. Dr. G.C. Pothal & Ors. Orissa S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 206.

INADEQUACY OF DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES IN PRE-OPERATIVE STAGE:

Inadequacy of Diagnostic Procedures in Pre-operative Stage -Deficiency in Service Compensation -Complainant 20 years old Engineering student -Admitted for treatment of benign tumour -After undergoing surgery for excision biopsy became paraplegic, confined to wheel chair -Pre-operative tests not carried out -Extension of tumour into intervertebral foramen came into opposite parties knowledge only while removing tumour - Opposite parties not able to explain why removal of benign tumour in cl1est wall resulted in spinal cord injury and paraplegia -Surgery performed without complete involvement of neurosurgeon -Serious lapse on part of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service -Opposite parties liable to pay RS.14 lakhs towards compensation.

Prasanth S. Dhananka v. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences National C.D.R.C I (1999) CPJ 43.

INFLATED CLAIM:

Death of 2 Years' Child - Compensation - District Forum awarded RS. 10,00,000/ - towards compensation – Absurdly exorbitant. Compensation for death of 2 years' child would be much below RS. 5,00,000/ --Claim reduced -Complaint returned to District Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction.

D. Venkateshwarlu v. Dr. P. Sudarshan Reddy Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C I (1999) CPJ 472.

MEASLES: NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE:

Complainant suffering from measles - Admitted in Escorts Hospital - Developed gangrene on left hand - Referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences - Arm amputated - Compensation claimed for negligence - No evidence to prove negligence or deficiency - Conventional method and manner of treatment adopted, doctor not negligent or deficient if patient does not respond and die.

Miss Maya Devi v. Escorts Medical Centre & Anr. Haryana S.C.D.R.C I (1999) CPJ 449.

Medical Negligence: Medical Terms: "ischemic Myelopathy", "Paraplegia", "Schwannomas" Neurilemmomas "Neurofirbronla","Vertebral foramen", "Cauda Equina".

Prasanth S. Dhananka v. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences .National C.O.R.C I (1999) CPJ. 43.

NEGLIGENCE IN CHOICE AND MANNER OF SURGERY:

Negligence in Choice and Manner of Surgery -Compensation - Complainant hit by motor cycle -Sustained hairline fracture at neck of right femur -Rough handling while taking him for second x-ray caused widening of fracture -Negligent treatment and selection of wrong mode of operation -Compensation claimed -Opposite party denied any negligence -Conservative line of treatment with skin traction given - Deterioration boot given for 9 days -Hemiarthroplasty done for early ambulation of patient - lnspite of best treatment, injection, loosening of prosthesis and erosion of bones, documented complications -Widening of fracture due to mishandling not proved -Opposite party not negligent or deficient in service.

S. Ramanujam v. Dr. C.P. Sreekumar Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. ~ I (1999) CPJ 666.

NEGLIGENCE AND DEFICIENCY ESTABLISHED: COMPENSATION GRANTED:

Deceased suffering from lung disease -Decortication operation performed -Pain recurred after two months -Tumor in advanced stage -Condition incurable -Sample for histo-pathology report not sent -Hospital has all necessary equipments to handle it- No reason to ignore such a routine matter -Negligence and deficiency on part of doctor established -Liable to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- towards compensation.

S. V. Panchori & Ors. v. Dr. Kaushal Pandey & Anr. Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ382.

NERVE INJURY: DEFICIENCY PROVED:

Nerve injury -Doctor agreed to close the wound -Only skin sutured without suturing nerve -Doctor knew no facility to join cut nerve at his Hospital-Continued treating him -Disability caused to leg because of negligence -Second operation suggested - Deficiency proved -Rs. 24,717/- awarded towards compensation along with 12% interest.
Manager, Martin Medical Centre v. E. V. Thomas Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 136.

NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE:

Deceased admitted in Nursing Home for delivery -Gave birth to a baby -Having some complaint -Referred to opposite party No.2 -Died -Cause of death, "raised intra-cranial tension" -No evidence to prove negligence -Conventional method and manner of treatment adopted, doctor not accused of any negligence or deficiency in service if patient does not respond and die.

Master Subam Kashyap v. Dr. (Mrs.J Sarla Madkan Haryana S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 505.

NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE WRONG TREATMENT:

Death due to rabies -Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment alleged -Clinical test conducted- Rabies diagnosed -Necessary treatment given -No evidence to prove wrong treatment -No negligence proved.

M. Parimanam v. Dr. C.P.Jaganathan & Ors. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.RoC. I (1999) CPJ 243.

NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE BLOOD CONTAINED HIV:

HIV Infected Blood Transfused -Compensation -Complainant's wife admitted for treatment of abdominal pain -Advised to undergo hysterectomy - Transfused 2 units of blood in post operative period -Blood contained HIV antibodies - Complainant's wife infected with AIDS virus -Died -Gross and patent negligence in transfusing infected blood -Compensation claimed -No receipt for payment for blood r: supplied by 2nd opposite party filed -No reliable evidence to prove blood contained HIV Blood transfused in December, 1992 -HIV detected after lapse of about one and half years -HIV transmitted from blood transfused not proved -No deficiency on part of opposite parties.

M. Chinnaiyan v. Sri Gokulam Hospital & Anr. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 587.

LIVED FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER OPERATION:

Complainant's wife operated upon by opposite party for removal of cancerous ; growth- Died -Complaint -Complainant's wife lived for more than two years after , operation -No ground for holding deficiency in service.

R.N. Sethi & Anr. v. Hardial Singh Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 33.

OPERATION MINOR COMPLICATIONS:

Removal of Prostate Gland -Complainant a retired Colonel, aged 57 years -Difficulty in passing urine for several hours -Baby feeding tube used by Urologist -Urine drained out by catheterisation -Minor complications inherent despite reasonable care -No deficiency on part of doctors.

Col. R.S. Ratra (Retd) v. Dr. Ashit Syngle Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C, I (1999) CPJ 56.

PREGNANCY TEST:

Pregnancy Test- Delay of 5 days in the menstruation period -Complainant contacted opposite party -Opposite party opined pregnancy after urine test -Complainant contacted another doctor. Opined no pregnancy -Complaint filed -District Forum granted Rs. 500 / -as compensation and recorded warning -Appeal by complainant for enhancement -Pregnancy test may not be accurate beyond 98% -No interference is called for.

Manpreet Kaur v. Dr. (Mrs.) A.K. Sawhney Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 149.

SURGERIES DONE IN NEGLIGENT MANNER:

Surgeries Done in Negligent Manner -Complainant fell down from moving bus suffered serious injuries -Non-accommodation in inpatient ward without treatment soon after admission -Haematoma not properly treated -Surgeries done in negligent manner -Allegations not established -No evidence to prove any deficiency in service on part of opposite party.

N. Venkatachalam v. Christian medical College Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 567.

ULTRA-SOUND REPORT, ERRONEOUS: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE: FEES REFUNDED:

Ultra-sound Report, Erroneous -Deficiency in Service -Complainant's report showed multiple shadows of stones -Operated -No stones found -Radiologist deficient in performance - Deficiency in service established -Fees charged for examination to be refunded.

Darshan Kaur v. Dr.J.S. Sodhi & Ors. Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 557.

VISION LOST: APPROPRIATE TREATMENT GIVEN: NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:

Vision Lost- Compensation -Irritation and redness in eye- Corneal scraping done -Smear negative for fungus -Pain increased -Second corneal scraping -Fungus positive report -Surgery to clean up infection -Small tear in anterior capsule resulted total blindness- Compensation claimed -Infection gone deep involving iris and anterior capsule of lens -Tear in anterior capsule inevitable while clearing infection -Infection totally cured after surgery -Fungal ulcer once diagnosed in lab, appropriate treatment given by opposite parties -No deficiency in service on their part.

M. Sujatha v. Dr. R. Suraprakash & Ors. Tamil Nadiu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 560.

WRONG BLOOD TRANSFUSION:

Wrong Blood Transfusion- Deficiency in Service -State Commission awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation -Hence appeal -Documents lacking essential technical details -Patient survived 4 years after treatment -No evidence to link blood transfusion with any resultant complications -Onus of proving negligence on complainant, not discharged -No negligence/deficiency proved -Order set aside.

Calcutta Medical Research Institute v. Bimalesh Chatterjee & Ors. National C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 13.

WRONG DIAGNOSIS, WRONG TREATMENT: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:

Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Treatment -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -Treatment of hyper- osmolar-Non ketotic diabetic acidosis -Patient admitted in I.C.U died after two weeks -Compensation claimed for wrong treatment- Evaluation of case must be done in correlation with clinical condition of patient -Mere date cannot be interpreted without studying patient then and there -Deceased seen by many specialists -All necessary treatment given -No deficiency /negligence proved -No compensation.

P.S. Krishnaswamy v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 119.

COST PRICE CHARGED BY GOVT HOSP, NOT A CONSUMER:

Deceased admitted for treatment of chest infection -Shifted to respiratory care unit- Died -Complaint regarding rates charged -Dismissed by District Forum -Hence appeal - Charges levied according to notification issued -Cost/price charged for rendering service not a consumer dispute.

Bakshish Singh v. Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 431.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION: FAILED TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE:

Negligence in Performing Blood Transfusion -Patient's blood group B Positive -Blood group tests carried out thrice, showed blood group as B Negative- Blood transfusion of B Negative given- Patient started feeling great restlessness and swelling in body - Compensation claimed -Patient failed to give correct information about actual blood group -R.H. factor can be influenced by medicines taken by patient -Medical negligence has to be proved by expert evidence -Nothing on record to support the allegation -Transfusion of B Negative to B Positive blood group, a recognised treatment -Negligence cannot be attributed if medical practitioner acts in accordance with general and. approved practice of profession.

Mrs. Meenakshi v. Dr. Surekha Sachar & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 60.

CLINICAL DEATH: NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE PROVED:

Clinical Death -Profuse bleeding after delivery -Complainant died –District Forum awarded compensation -Hence appeal -Complainant developed restlessness, sweating profusely, complaining chest pain -Pulse feeble, complainant suddenly gone into state of shock -Death due to shock by amniotic fluid embolism- Sudden development of shock along with marginal laceration of cervix -Symptoms of pulmonary embolism a within 10 minutes or 32 hours post partum -No deficiency in service proved -Order set aside.

Ravindra Kulkarni v. Balasaheb Gangaram Gavade Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 152.

DENTIST: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:

Dentist -Complainant got fixed a denture of two front teeth -One of them broke -Approached opposite party for replacing -Complaint filed alleging deficiency - Evidence appreciated -No deficiency in service was found.

G. Murali v. Marakkal Kalarikkal Janardhanan Kerala S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 375.

FALSE CERTIFICATE ISSUED: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE: ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION:

False Certificate Issued -Compensation -VDRL test -Certificate indicated VDRL as "Positive" for "Titre 1.8" -Clearly meant either of spouses suffering from venereal disease -Doctor accordingly gave the prescription -Complainant subjected to another test -Previous certificate proved to be false -No indication in previous certificate that results should be treated as preliminary subject to confirmatory test-Serious deficiency in service -Complainant entitled to compensation.

Chandrasagar D. Rajput & Anr. v. Dr. Dinesh J. Shah Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 165.

FREE MEDICAL SERVICES: NO HIRING, NO CONSIDERATION:

Deceased a railway employee- Had free medical service- Not hired the service for consideration -Not a consumer.

S. Tharani v. Southern Railway Headquarters Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 485.

HOMEOPATHIC DOCTOR TREATING IN ALLOPATHIC SYSTEM: GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE:

Death Due to Negligence in Treatment -Deceased suffering from gastro-enteritis disease-Opposite party a Homeopathic Doctor treated deceased into system -Acted in contravention of Medical Council Act, 1956 -opposite party prohibited, Medical Negligence: Homeopathic Doctor Treating in Allopathic System: Guilty of Negligence: Liable to pay compensation to practice in Allopathy as not legally qualified -Guilty of negligence -liable to pay compensation.

Dr. ShivkumarGautam v. Alima B. & Ors. Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 25.

IMPROPER TREATMENT -COMPENSATION: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:

Deficiency in Service-Improper Treatment -Compensation -Complainant suffering from pain in right leg -Went to opposite party's nursing home on 2.7.1994- Treated there till 7.7.1994- Condition deteriorated -Admitted in another hospital- Gangrene formed - Leg amputed up to thigh -Negligence on part of opposite party established -Complainant entitled to compensation.

Anumalla Satyanarayana v. K. Shankar Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 420.

JURISDICTION: AWARD SET ASIDE:

Jurisdiction -Correct treatment of surgical intervention not advised disability of child prolonged -District Forum awarded compensation- Hence appeal- No part of cause of action arose at Nasik -District Forum, Nasik has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint -Award set aside.

Deepak Behl v. Dr. Narendra M. Rege Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 601.

NEGLIGENCE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO DOCTOR:

Proper Treatment Not Given -Compensation -Gangrene developed in left foot second toe -Amputation of leg below knee -Compensation claimed -District Forum held, no negligence on part of opposite party proved -Hence appeal- No specific therapy available for diabetic ulcers - Doctors adopted established practice of treatment -Incubation period of gas gangrene usually short -Very short time left for treatment-Contention, non healing wound not treated for gangrene not acceptable -Doctors took appropriate steps as soon as it was detected - Initial treatment adopted by Doctor cannot be faulted -No negligence can be attributed to Doctor -Order upheld.

Rajkuwarbai v. Dr. R.R. Dhoot, Medical Practitioner, Dhoot Hospital Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 682.

NEGLIGENCE IN TREATMENT AND POST-OPERATIVE CARE NOT PROVED:

Negligence in treatment and post-operative care -Complainant suffering from cataract -Operated -Irritation, unbearable headache continued -Second operation performed -Eye-sight lost -Compensation claimed -No evidence produced to prove - wrong medicine prescribed -Injury in operated eye after two weeks-Operation performed with reasonable care, any after-effect subsequently noticed due to absence of proper care, doctor cannot be held guilty -Medical negligence against doctor not proved.

Charan Singh v. Khosla Hospital Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 633.

NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE PROVED:

Delegation of Responsibility to junior -Compensation -Child of one year having fever -Admitted in O.P .' s hospital- Child died -Compensation claimed -O.P. examined the child, diagnosed, prescribed treatment- O.P .' s presence not necessary -Duty doctor himself a paediatrician, constantly watching child's condition -Survival of child for about 24 hours indicates proper treatment given -No evidence regarding incorrectness of diagnosis or inadequacy of treatment -No deficiency in service proved - Complainant not liable to any compensation.

Consumer Awareness & Research Society & Anr. v. Healing Touch Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 208.

PREGNANCY TREATMENT NO NEGLIGENCE PROVED:

Treatment During Pregnancy -Condition serious -Tendency of abortion - Complete bed rest advised -Instructions of doctor not complied with –Prescribed medicines had any adverse effect on pregnancy , no record to show -Medicines prevented abortion- Death due to congestive heart failure, a spontaneous occurrence -Not possible to save the patient in such cases -Complainant failed to show medicines responsible for the ~~ death -No negligence proved.

Shiv Gopal v. Dr. (Smt) Sudha Gupta Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 391.

TRADITIONAL PROCESS OF TREATMENT ADOPTED:

Ultra Sound Scan not Suggested at Primary Stage of Pregnancy - Compensation- Missed abortion -Traditional process of treatment adopted by doctors - Treatment given was the best one given in such like cases- Both doctors performed their duty efficiently -Mere fact that ultra sound scan not suggested at primary stage of pregnancy cannot be attributed any way to deficiency in services -Doctors can get the order published in the same newspaper where defamation article had been published -Complainant liable to pay Rs. 2,000 / -to both doctors by way of compensation.

Geeta Devi @ Geeta Rani v. Dr. Ketki Garg Punjab S.C,D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 593.

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES PROVED: ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION:

False Advertisement -, Compensation -Complainant had ulcer on legs -Eye catching advertisement- Complete cure by importing vaccine promised -Treated for about 15 months -Ulcer did not subside -Condition aggravated requiring removal of patient to other hospital -Ailment incurable, patient not informed -Material fact sup- pressed, treatment prolonged -Unfair trade practices proved -Complainant entitled to compensation.

Director , Mary Queen's Mission Hospital v. M.J. Jose Kerla S.C,D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 57.

WRONG TREATMENT: NOT PROVED: NO COMPENSATION MAJORITY VIEW:

Wrong Treatment-Compensation -Pain in abdomen -Treatment given for termination of pregnancy -Bleeding and excruciating pain started -Ultra Sound Scan by other hospital- Uterus ruptured, part of intestine damaged due to mismanagement of opposite party -Emergency operation performed -Uterus and damaged intestine removed -Compensation claimed -Ultra Sound Scan report, prescriptions, certificate issued by other hospital produced -Documents not proved by persons who issued them - Not reliable -Complainant suffered on account of wrong treatment given by opposite party not proved -Complainant not entitled to compensation.
Panjali & Anr. v. Dr. Mrs. S. Jamuna Lokanathar Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. II (1999) CPJ 555.

Blood report not produced:

No negligence, Deficiency in Service -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Sections 2(1)g, 15- Appeal- Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service -Treatment -Complainant's son suffering from blood cancer - Opposite party could not treat the disease in a period of 40 days -Blood report not produced -In absence of report doctor treating the son cannot be held negligent or deficient in service.

Wahid Khan v. Dr. Mohd. Abdul Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Ceasarean delivery:

Trial of labour -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Deficiency in Service -Medical Negligence -Delivery of child -Ceasarean delivery -Complainant had a daughter by caesarean earlier -Admitted with opposite party for delivery of the second child -Opposite party tried for labour pains -No progress of labour for 18-20 hours -Ceasarean performed -Foetus was already dead before the performance of surgery -None of the relatives offer the blood -Complaint filed alleging negligence as she may not be able to bear the next baby -.Trial of labour was justified -Patient gave birth to a male child after it ' There is no deficiency on part of respondent3.

Kiranjeet v. Dr. S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Charge of negligence and deficiency in service could not be substantiated -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Sections 14(1)(d), 2(1)(g)

'Hospital'- 'Negligence' - Deficiency in Service-Complainantwas operated upon for urine trouble in a private hospital - on 2.11.1990 -Despite operation and medicines problem of continuous urine flow could not be cured -Hencecomplaint- Whether the complainant had been able to substantiate charge of negligence and deficiency in service ? -[No].

Tarachand fain v. Ganga Ram Hospital (National C.DRC.) (1999) CPJ.

Evidence not sufficient: No Deficiency in Service -Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g)

Medical Negligence- "Deficiency in Service" -Husband of the complainant was an Engineer in Damodar Valley Corporation at Chandrapura -She developed bronchial problems -Consulted appellant No.1 -In 1987 her condition deteriorated -She consulted Dr. Chptri at Calcutta -Was advised to leave Chandrapura and stay in Calcutta -Dr. Chetri desired appellant No.1 to furnish a report in detail for expert opinion and treatment -Appellant No.1 failed to provide -In 1991 all her bronchial problems increased -Taken to Dr. Sen at Calcutta -Appellant No.1 refused to follow the expert advice -Husband transferred Fusi and Calcutta, then to another station .-Consulted appellant No.2, who made rude remarks about the prescription given by expert doctors -Her condition deteriorated but appellant No.2 did not advise for her removal from the clinic of appellant No.2 -Taken to Calcutta -Expert affirmed that proper treatment has not been given -State Commission accepted the complaint- Hence appeal- Whether there is any'medical negligence in treatment of the complainant?

Subhashis Dhir v. Smt. Sanjukta Sengupta National C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Expert Evidence not competent: Nexus between treatment and virus not proved -Consumer Protection Act. 1986 -Section 15- Appeal-

Medical Negligence -Expert Evidence-Complainant's son got burnt- Took to opposite party- Treatment given -No relief-Son became invalid -Complaint filed alleging negligence- District Forum allowed complaint- Appeal- Complainant filed affidavit of one Dr. Agrawal, B.A.M.S.-Not competent to give expert evidence -Nexus between treatment and virus not proved - Complainant failed to prove allegations.

R.K. fain v. Sunil Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Negligence in Diagnosis and Operation: Forceps intentionally left in order to stop bleeding: No negligence. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d)

Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Negligence in Diagnosis and Operation -Compensation - Operation for removal of tumour -Profuse bleeding- Patient referred to CMC. -Died on the way -Discovery of forceps in the remains of deceased in cremation ground - F.I.R. lodged -Criminal proceedings started against doctor -Forceps intentionally left in order to stop bleeding -No negligence on part of doctor -Complainant concealed material information regarding qualification and experience of opposite party , expert opinion already taken and Court dropping the case on F .I.R. -Expert evidence not produced -Complainant - Medical Negligence: Negligence in Diagnos.1, and operation: Forceps intentionally left in order to stop bleeding No negligence failed before Criminal Court -Not satisfied -Dragged opposite party in litigation -Liable I to pay compensation-cum-costs.

Bhagwan Dass Arora v. Dr. Ashok ingal Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

I-Negligence has to be established not presumed-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 14(1)(d)
Medical Negligence -Complainant's minor son was taken to a Private Medical Centre for treatment- Minor was operated on the .' same day -On the evening gained consciousness -On the next day the minor's abdominal pain became unbearable and convulsive vomiting also started -Second operation .was performed -Even after the second operation the pain did not subside and the patient continued having fever and vomiting --Hovering between life and death -But was discharged and advised for complete rest and check-up after every one month -After one month the patient was referred to Christian Medical Hospital (CMC), Vellore -The complainant instead took the minor to a prominent doctor of Calcutta at Kothari Medical Centre- Where he was treated and became stable- Hence complaint against the respondent i -Whether there is any negligence ? -[No].

Kanhaiya Kumar Singh v. Park Medicare and Research Centre (National C.D.R.C, I (1999) CPJ.

Negligence not proved: No deficiency in service -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g)

Medical Negligence- Deficiency in Service -Negligence in Treatment -Haemorrhage during operation, with the result vision of both eyes lost -Negligence in operation, not proved -No connection between the two - No deficiency in service proved.

Dilip Kumar Biswas v. Mothari Medical Centre West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Pregnancy after tubectomy operation: Complainant failed to prove negligence -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g)

Medical Negligence- Deficiency in Service -Pregnancy. After Tubectomy Operation -Compensation -District Forum held, failure of operation due to negligence, O.P. liable to pay compensation -Hence appeal- Opposite party has good experience in conducting this type of operations- No complication or disorders developed after operatio.1 -Failure of this type of operation 0.2 % - Complainant became pregnant 2l/J. years after the operation- There might have been reunion of tubes in natural course during 2l/J. years -Complainant failed to establish that operation conducted in negligent manner- Forum not right in awarding compensation- Order set aside.

N. Sandhya Rani v. M. Kalpana & Anr. Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Re-Canalisation Operation successfully done: No Deficiency in Service -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g)

Medical Negligence -Re-Canalisation Operation- Deficiency in Service -Both fallopion tubes blocked -Right side tube fully re- canalised after operation -Conception can take place if one of the two tubes un-blocked - Re-canalisation operation successfully done -Opposite party not responsible if complainant failed to conceive --Not guilty of deficiency in service.

Dr. (Mrs.) JvIadhu Rana v. Smt. Bim1aG~P~;!" ,~~;~hi ;~ I (1999) CPJ.

Negligence:Sterilisation has failure rate: Not Negligence -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 14(1)(d)

Medical Negligence -Sterilisation Failure -CoJI1.pensation -Every method of sterilisation has certain failure rate -Risk of failure inherent in the procedure -Cannot be obviated despite due care and caution - Opposite party not guilty of negligence.

Jaiwati v. Parivar Seva Santha Delhi S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

Surgery: No evidence to prove negligence: Claim not sustainable-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 0- Section 14(1)(d)

Medical Negligence -Surgery - Compensation -Abdominal pain -intestinal obstruction -Retention of urine and fever- Urgent operation performed -Myocardial infarction with cardiac arrest caused death of patient -Compensation claimed -Myocardial infarction unpredictable -No evidence produced to prove the negligence of doctors -Claim not sustainable.

Rekha v. Kamble v. Dr. M.M. Agrawal Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ.

MEDICAL TREATMENT : Operation conducted free of cost: N o fraud or cheating -Conswner Protection Act, 1986 -Sections 17/12

Complaint -Fraud -Doctor -Complainant patient of polio-operated upon by opposite party-Complaint filed alleging fraud committed by opposite party -Operation was conducted free of charge -Question of any fraud or cheating does not arise.

Biharilal Thavait v. Dr. Prakash Ladikar Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (1999) CPJ 535.