AICL Cases 2000

CONTINUATION OF PREGNANCY AFTER MTP
Complainant approached opposite party on 1.7.1997 for medical termination of pregnancy, conducted by doctor (opposite party) -On 8.7.1997 it was revealed that foetus (child) was intact and growing -Complainant got second MTP -filed complaint --There was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. District Forum granted Rs 8,000/= as compensation -Appeal- Not a reasonable way to assess the compensation -Opposite party directed to pay back medical charges -Consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/= granted.
N. Lalitha Krishna v. Deepa Nair Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:340

PREGNANCY AFTER STERILIZATION:
Birth of A Child In Spite of Sterilisation Operation Which Failed: Entitlement to Claim Full Damages from State Government to Bring up Child. Family planning in our country is important programme for implementation of which Government has created mass awakening for use of various devices including sterilisation operation- Doctor as also State must be held responsible in damages if sterilisation operation in for sterilisation -Respondent, poor lady already had seven children -She was under considerable monetary burden -Unwanted child born to her was additional burden for her on account of negligence of doctor who performed sterilisation operation upon her -She is entitled to claim full damages from State Government to enable her to bring up child till she attains puberty.
Statutory Liability to Maintain Children: No Bar in Claiming Damages on Account of Tort of Medical Negligence in not Carrying out Sterilisation Operation with Due Care Two situations are based on two different principles -Obligation to maintain besides being statutory in nature is also personal as it arises from the very existence of relationship between parent and child -Claim for damages, on the contrary, is based on principle that if person has committed civil wrong, he must pay compensation by way of damages to person wronged -Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- Sections 20,23.
State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra (Supreme Court of India) (SC) I (2000) CPJ:53.

CRIMINAL CASE PENDING: CASE STAYED TILL DISPOSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE:
Criminal case pending -Defence if disclosed would prejudice defence in criminal case - Proceedings before Commission cannot continue -Complaint -Case stayed till disposal of criminal case.
Naved Ahmed v. Dr. Rakesh Kacker Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ: 201.

NON-GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS/NURSING HOMES, CHARGES FALLS IN EXPRESSION "SERVICES":
Complainant alleges medical negligence on the part of a lady doctor -Alleges paid charges for treatment -Opposite party denied the allegations and contended that she did not receive any fee because of close relationship - Whether the doctor has rendered services free of cost ? -(No) -Whether there is a negligence on the part of the doctor ? -(Yes).
Vijay H. Mankar v. Dr. (Mrs.) Mangla Bansod (National C.D.R.C,) I (2000) CPJ:37.

INCOMPLETE ABORTION:
Incomplete abortion -Compensation -Opposite party fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner -M.T.P. done without prescribed qualification at hospital not recognised for doing it- No attempt made to ascertain the reason of ailment -Possibility of incomplete evacuation not considered -Negligence on part of opposite party proved - Complainant entitled to get compensation along with interest.
C. V. Mathew v. P. Babu Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:134.

LEG AMPUTATION:
Complainant suffering from pain in the right leg -Consulted opposite party -Kept under his own diagnosis -No relief- Complainant went to another hospital. Leg was to be amputated because gangrene had settled –complaint allowed by District forum Complaint -Appeal -Opposite party did not consult any specialist -Did not refer the complainant to any other hospital-Order of District Forum upheld -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Anumalla Satyanarayana v. K. Shankar Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:288.

GAUGE INSIDE THE BODY:
Non-removal of Gauge from Inside the Body -Reasonable care not exercised at the time of operation. No evidence of second operation removing gauge pieces given- No document filed in support of contention -False complaint filed -Complainant liable to pay cost.
Syed Zahid Ali v. Dr. Jaiprakash Paliwal Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:129.

OPERATION PERFORMED IN HURRIED AND HASTY MANNER:
Operation Performed in Hurried and Hasty Manner- Swelling on abdomen -Two operations performed for removal of lump -Operations performed without clinical examination not proved -Lump, a sort of cancer proved by biopsy report -Operation performed only after clinical examination and according to standard medical surgical practice -No material produced to prove gross negligence on part of opposite party -Complainant not entitled to any compensation.
Chandra v. Mahesh Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:361.

MTP: PRODUCT NOT OBTAINED: PATIENT ADVISED TO REPEAT D&C:
Pregnancy Termination- Product Not Obtained -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -Second surgery conducted -Product obtained -Forum awarded compensation -Appeal - Possibility of missing product when pregnancy terminated up to 6 weeks of pregnancy - Patient advised to repeat D&C -No negligence or deficiency in service on part of opposite parties -Complainant not entitled to compensation.
P.N. Bhaskaran v. Mrs. Molly Robinson Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ: 81.

STERILISATION DONE WITHOUT CONSENT:
Consent obtained during course of surgery, not acceptable -Person giving consent must be aware of risk involved -Patient under general anaesthesia neither can understand the risk involved nor could give the consent -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Janaki S. Kumar v. Mrs. Sarafunnisa Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:484.

EXHIBITION OF EXPERT SKILL IN PERFORMING OPERATION:
Pain in abdomen, removal of uterus- Problem of frequent urination kept continuing- Hole occurred in urinary bladder while removing uterus -Removal of tube from urinary bladder after 10 days reason for of occurrence of V. V .F. during operation cannot be ruled out -Occurrence of V. V .F. a known complication -Opposite party exhibited expert skill in performing hysterectomy and entrometriosis -Not guilty of any negligence.
Rameshwar Pd. Agrawal v. Abas Ansari Bihar S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:433.

NO CHARGES NOT A CONSUMER:
Services rendered by hospital on payment of charges not proved: Complaint not maintainable -Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section2(1)(c) -Complaint -Medical Negligence - Complaint against doctors and hospital not maintainable.
Daya v. Rohit Goel Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ: 332.

WRONG DIAGNOSIS:
Wrong Diagnosis and Treatment -Compensation -Deceased having chronic duodenal ulcer operated, BUN-normal, urine albumin being (+ + + ) -Blood pressure not recorded -Deceased operated inspite of low blood haemoglobin -Complainant failed to prove the allegations -Renal problem suppressed by opposite party not proved -No evidence produced to show investigation, diagnosis and treatment given in Government Hospitals -Negligence on part of opposite parties not proved -Complainant not entitled to compensation.
Saraswathi v. M/s. Vimala Hospital (P)Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ: 115.

ORTHOPAEDIC: 50% DISABILITY SUFFERED:
Operation of Knee Joint Resulting Permanent Disability -Compensation -Burden to rebut the contentions of complainant lie upon opposite party -Opposite party expected to explain the cause for deformity -Reply in affidavit silent on this issue -Record of the case not produced as eliminated after a lapse of 3 years -Plea of elimination of an attempt to suppress certain facts -Complainant suffered 50% disability , entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest.
S.A. Qureshi v. Padode Memorial Hospital & Research Centre Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 463.

ANAESTHESIA, HEAVY DOSE GIVEN:
Patient admitted for operation of Hernia -Same day operation conducted - Patient died -Heavy dose of anaesthesia given -Complaint -Opposite party guilty of negligence and deficiency in service.
Bhanupal v. Prakash Padode Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:384.

BURDEN OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE UPON COMPLAINANT:
Negligence -Expert Evidence -Burden of Proof -Complaint filed alleging medical negligence -Burden of proving negligence is upon complainant -No expert evidence produced -Complaint -Dismissed -Appeal.
N.S. Sahota v. New Ruby Hospital Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:345.

CONSUMER: "BENEFICIARY" OF SERVICE HIRED ON PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION:
Consumer- Beneficiary- Husband Second Class Heir -Wife died due to medical negligence -Complaint filed by husband - Opposite party objected husband not a consumer being second class heir -Complainant is a beneficiary.
N.K. Kohli v. Bajaj Nursing Home Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 308.

EXPERT EVIDENCE INDICATING NEGLIGENCE NOT PRODUCED, CANNOT BE HELD NEGLIGENT:
Negligence in performance of operation -Compensation - Complainant's wife suffering with bleeding -Advised to undergo TCRE -Died during -Expert evidence indicating negligence unless not produced -Opposite parties cannot be held negligent -Complainant failed to substantiate his contentions by expert opinion, evidence or medical literature -Complaint dismissed.
Abdulla Modiwala v. G.D. Birla Memorial Health Centre Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:502.

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED:
Complainant conceived after Tubectomy (T.T.) operation -No method of tubal sterilization is without failure -Uterine and ectopic pregnancy may result from such failure -Expert evidence not produced to prove negligence -No deficiency in service proved - Complainant not entitled to any compensation.
Pushpabai v. Dr. S. Joseph Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:566.

FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY KIND OF NEGLIGENCE:
Child went in to coma after treatment. No document filed indicating any kind of negligence in performance of operation or in post operative care -Complainant failed to establish any kind of negligence on behalf of opposite party -Complaint dismissed.
Study Circle Society v. Choithram Hospital and Research Centre Madhya Pradesh S.C:D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 436.

INVESTIGATIONS NOT DONE:
Wife of complainant underwent surgical operation by opposite party -Gall bladder removed by Laparoscopic Cholecystactomy -There had been biliary drainage - Required ERCP test -Not advised by Doctor -Not mentioned by hospital in discharge slip -Patient died -Complaint -Both opposite parties are equally deficient.
N.K. Kohli v. Bajaj Nursing Home Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 308.

MIS-MATCHING OF BLOOD AND WRONG TRANSFUSION CONFIRMED:
Mis- matching of Blood -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -Complainant's wife suffer burn injuries to the extent of 50%, Admitted to PGI Chandigarh -Patient's blood group A +, transfused B+ group blood -Kidney damaged due to wrong transfusion of blood - matching of blood and wrong transfusion confirmed -PG.I Chandigarh liable to pay compensation.
Jaspal Singh v. Post Graduate. Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) Chandigarh, Chandigarh C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:439.

NEGLIGENCE PRESUMED, NO EXPERT EVIDENCE:
Expert evidence -Complainant's son treated by opposite party -Died -Complaint filed alleging medical negligence -No post mortem conducted -No medical expert was produced - Complaint dismissed -Appeal-Complainant contended negligence to be presumed - force in appeal.
Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar v. Sewa Singh Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:180.

OPTHALMOLOGY:
Defect in eye -Operated upon by opposite party -Negligence proved in operation -Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/= granted.
Jaswinder Singh v. J.S: Saini Chandigarh C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:262.

Person died due to medical negligence -Compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 /= granted.
Bhanupal v. Prakash Padode Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:384.

ORTHOPEDIC:
Complainant suffered multiple injury in leg- Examined by opposite party - Complaint filed alleging negligence -No evidence to show that fractured bones of complainant had taken more time to unite- No evidence of faulty treatment- No deficiency in service on part of opposite party.
Ashok Kumar Singh v. Dr. Mohan Thakur Bihar S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 220.

Fracture in arm -Plastered by opposite party –No opinion of any doctor filed Complaint filed alleging doctors record showing plaster broken by complainant -No negligence on the part of opposite party doctor is proved.
Suraj singh v. Dr. Manoj Kankaney Uttar Pradesh S.C.D:R.C. II (2000) CPJ:293.

ONUS OF PROOF SHIFTS ON DOCTOR TO PROVE THAT NO NEGLIGENCE TOOK PLACE IN OPERATION THEATRE:
Complainant is not in a position to state as to what happened inside the operation theatre so duty caste upon opposite party doctor to prove no negligence took place inside the operation theatre.
Bhanupal v. Prakash Padode Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:384.

DEFICIENCY IN POST OPERATIVE CARE:
Complaint -Compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted.
N.K. Kohli v. Bajaj Nursing Home Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:308.

Government Doctor Advised to Admit in his Private Nursing Home: Misconduct. Complainant brought his son to Health Centre where opposite party was Medical Officer -Opposite party advised him to get admitted in his private nursing home -Amounts to misconduct.
Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar v. Sewa singh Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:180.

PATHOLOGICAL TEST CONDUCTED NEGLIGENTLY:
Blood Test -Blood of complainant's daughter tested by opposite party -Cave positive report for infection -Suspicion raised -Got blood samples tested at other places -Negative for infection -Act of opposite party is negligent -Complainant is to be compensated.
Shashi Bala v. Sushil Kumar Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:205.

Pathological Tests: Report False & Incorrect:
Unfair Trade Practice -Laboratories conducting Pathological tests -Preparing incorrect and false report -Is unfair trade practice.
Shashi Bala v. Sushil Kumar Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:205.

SONOGRAPHY REPORT WRONG WAS INCORRECT: NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:
Wrong Sonography Report -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -Sonography report, Intrauterine Fatal Death on 13.6.1995- Complainant's wife delivered child on 2.1.1998 - Compensation claimed for expenses incurred due to wrong report-Complainant's wife got aborted, conceived again -Report dated 11.10.1995 speaks of pregnancy of 10-12 weeks which itself suggests that complainant's wife conceived again after abortion -Fact of abortion suppressed -Sonography report dated 13.6.1995 not wrong -No deficiency in service proved -Complaint dismissed.
Malkhan Singh v. Modern X-Ray Sonography & Patho Centre ~ Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ: 441.

FREE MEDICAL AID, NOT A CONSUMER:
Free Medical by complainant -Complaint filed on account of failure of operation -No fees paid - Complainant is not a consumer.
J Prahri Consumer Welfare Association v. North-Eastern Railway Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ:205.

PEDIATRIC:
Complainant got his 7 months' old child admitted in opposite parties hospital on 13.3.1996 - Expired on 1.4.1996- Complaint alleging negligence in treatment -District Forum granted compensation -Appeal -Civil Surgeon certified that no fault in treatment -There is no negligence on the part of doctor.
M.S. Bhatambre v. Babu K. Kople Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:366.

CRIMINAL CASE PENDING:
Commission cannot conduct concurrent adjudication of case under Act -Medical Negligence -Complaint Lodged With A.C.J .M. Involving Same Subject Matter - Commission cannot Conduct Concurrent Adjudication of Case Under Act.
Samilr Nath Mukherjee v. Saroj Ghosh West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:216.

Co-op society not adjudicable under consumer:
Complainant not a member of Society; Medical negligence does not acquire character of "Business" of Society : Complaint is maintainable -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 15- Appeal- Kerala Co-operative Societies Act Sections 69(1) and 70- Medical Negligence -Complainant treated in Co-operative Hospital- Complaint filed alleging medical negligence -District Forum dismissed complaint is barred under Section 69(1) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act- Appeal-
K.E. Rajesh v. President, District Co-operative Hospital Kerala S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ: 354.

BREAST CANCER SURGERY: CORRECT AND BEST TREATMENT ADOPTED:
Complainant's wife treated by opposite party for breast cancer -Wife expired -Complaint filed alleging negligence -No error of judgment -Opposite party adopted the correct and best treatment- No negligence or deficiency found.
S.K. Sharma v. Dr. P.B. Desai Mahrashtra S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:407.

DEATH: NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE IN PERFORMING SURGERY:
No Prima Facie Material to prove negligence or services hired for Consideration -Child of complainant suffering from fluid accumulation in head- Services of opposite party alleged to be hired for consideration, consisting of payment of Rs. 2,250/ -for C. T .Scan brain and Rs. 300/- towards anaesthetist consultation -C. T. Scan taken independently by complainant in separate scanning centre -No material placed on record for payment of said amount-shunt tube costing Rs.1,500/ -purchased by hospital (OP) at their own costs on humanitarian grounds -Complainant indicated of brain-stem dysfunction with likelihood of perilous consequences ensuing to life of child consequent on operation –No prima facie material to point out death child died due to negligence of opposite party in performance of operation or services hired for consideration.
Elizabrth Rani v. A.N. Harilal Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ: 149.

EXPERT EVIDENCE MISSING: Onus heavily on complainant; failed to prove negligence:
Complainant's wife gave birth to child -Caesarean operation by doctor - Wife died- Complaint alleging medical negligence -No expert evidence -No post-mortem got conducted -Every unsuccessful operation cannot be considered as negligent act of doctor - Onus of proof of negligence is heavily on complainant- Complainant failed to prove negligence.
Surinder Kunmar (Laddi) v. Dr. Santosh Menon Punjab S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:517.

Expert opinion to be accepted:
Deficiency in Service proved complaint for - Testimony of expert witness -To be accepted -Deficiency proved.
R.P. Dahiya v. Pardrep Aggarwal Haryana S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:175.

FEE PAID, NO AVERMENT, NOT A SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ACT. No averment of any fees paid -Not a service within the meaning of Act.
R. Shanmuga Chandra Vadivu v. Sir Ivan Stedford Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:299.

ORTHOPEDIC:
Fracture in leg- Operated by opposite party- Leg shorten -upon complainant -No doctor stated that earlier treatment was wrong- Medical practitioner is only required to exercise reasonable degree of skill and knowledge -No deficiency in service is proved.
Kamta Prasad Singh v. Nagina Prasad Bihar S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:283.

MEDICINE PRESCRIBED, REACTION: PREGNANCY NOT CHECKED:
-Complainant approached opposite party for treatment -Medicine prescribed -Reaction in body -Became totally crippled -Complaint -Rs. 1.50 lacs granted as damages- Appeal- Pregnancy not checked by Doctor -Definitely negligence of doctor - Order confirmed.
Smita Ashok Bangal v. Noorjehan Israr Ahmed Ansari Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ: 132.

MISMATCH BLOOD TRANSFUSION:
Complainant alleges negligence due to mismatch blood transfusion given to the deceased by a doctor of P.G.I. Awarded Rs. two lacs as compensation by State Commission -Hence appeal -Whether there is a serious deficiency and negligence on the part of P.G.I. and its attending doctors ? [Yes].
P.G.I., Chandigarh v. Jaspal Singh National C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:32.

NEGLIGENT ACT NOT SEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE:
No negligent act in accordance with standard practice -Nothing on record to indicate complainant was not attended with due care -Deficiency in service on part of opposite party cannot be stated. Rajinder Singh v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre Delhi S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ 558.

OPERATION TEN TIMES OF SAME PROBLEM:
NEGLIGENT - Patient operated ten times for same problem -Opposite party negligent in treating patient - Rupees seven lakhs granted as compensation.
Abdul Kadar Sulenman Allana v. Saptarshi Medical and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Mahrastra S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:258.

CLAIM NOT "UNREALISTIC", EXAGGERATED: OR EXCESSIVE:
Paralysis on Right Side, Permanent Disablement, Illegal Removal of One Kidney: Jurisdiction: Compensation: Claim not "Unrealistic", Exaggerated: or Excessive. Appellant was operated upon for removal of "stone from Urethra" in respondent No.1 hospital -Certain complications arose on account of negligence of respondent No.1 hospital in administration of spinal anaesthesia and performing operation –Appellant paralysed on right hand side of his body- No improvement despite medicines -He also started passing blood along with urine- Advised to undergo another operation -Paralytic condition continued -His left kidney removed when he was in drowsy state -Appellant claimed Rs. 34 lakhs by way of compensation from respondents- National Consumer Forum was not fair in disposing of complaint by styling his claim as "excessive" or "exaggerated" after six years of pendency of complaint -No opportunity given to appellant to substantiate his case -Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes or minimizes chances of arbitrariness and higher Forum can test correctness of those reasons -National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction without pecuniary limitations, to award proper compensation, even less than one claimed in a given case -Complaint petition filed by appellant for compensation pending before National Consumer Forum for six long years -Pleadings completed -Appellant condemned unheard after waiting for six years -Impugned order of National Consumer Forum set aside -Complaint remanded to National Consumer Forum for disposal in accordance with law -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 23.
Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (Supreme Court of India) (SC) III (2000) CPJ:1.

PROFESSIONAL SUFFERED LOSS: COMPENSATION GRANTED:
Complainant an Advocate -Compensation sought is exaggerated -Must have suffered professional loss- Rs. 1.25 lacs granted as compensation.
R.P. Dahiya v. Pardeep Aggarwal Haryana S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:175.

REMEDY BY SURGICAL TREATMENT GIVEN BY DOCTORS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS GUARANTEE FOR OPERATION:
Complainant underwent surgery for pain and swelling in his right knee at opposite party hospital- Huge amounts spent by him for surgery -No remedy offered for melody complainant was suffering -Allegation of negligence on part of doctors who performed operation -Fact that remedy is not provided by surgical treatment does not mean deficiency in service on part of medical experts who performed operation -No prima facie material to show negligence on part of doctor made out.
P. Mani v. Sri Ramachandra Medical College Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:190.

RISK IN SURGERY EXPLAINED; DECEASED AGREED TO AFTER CONSULTING FAMILY DOCTOR:
Complainants allege deficiency in service and negligence on the part of doctors which ultimately: became the cause of death of the husband of complainant No.1 There are other allegations of, omission and commission on the part of doctors while performing surgery -Opposite parties submitted the allegations and contended that risk involved in the surgery was explained and the deceased agreed to after consulting his family doctor.
Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre National C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:18.

SERVICES RENDERED FREE OF CHARGE CANNOT BE A CONSUMER:
Consumer Services Rendered Free of Charge cannot be Regarded as Service and Complainant cannot be Regarded as Consumer- Petitioner, medical practitioner for more than 17 years of practice wife developed respiratory trouble -ECG report indicated development of Sinus Tachychordia -Deceased admitted in cabin of Nursing Home -Not clear under whose care and treatment deceased was put at Nursing Home -Petitioner personally examined his wife and observed persistence of respiratory trouble -Next day deceased was shifted to I.C.C.U. -Deceased was declared dead -Complainant simply stated mode of treatment was highly irregular and deviating from norm of medical practice leading to death of his wife -Rendering of any service free of charge cannot be regarded as service -Complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to show payment of amount to attending physicians -Petitioner cannot be regarded as consumer.
Samar Nath Mukherjee v. Saroj Ghosh West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:216.

SPECIFIC ACT OR EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED: NO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE:
Complaint filed alleging medical negligence -No averment of specific act of negligence -No expert evidence produced -Difficult to hold negligence on part of opposite party.
Prasanta Kumar Chakraborty v. Dr. Jahar Debnath West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:91.

TOOTH FIXATION, THREE OTHER BROKEN; COMPENSATION ASTRONOMICAL, NOT BEYOND PECUNIARY VALUE OF JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT FORUM:
Jurisdiction -Fixing Artificial Tooth in Left Jaw -Three Other Teeth Broken -Compensation of 5 Lakhs Quantified to Knock at Doors of Commission -Neither necessary and requisite averments made in complaint nor any tangible material placed on record to point out as to how sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation quantified towards pain and suffering and mental agony -Complainant quantified compensation amount in astronomical figure of Rs. 5 lakhs just to knock at the doors of .this Commission -If at all complainant is entitled to any compensation in event of proof of medical negligence, such costs cannot go beyond pecuniary value of jurisdiction of District Forum -Complaint returned to be filed before competent District Forum.
Vijaya Raghavan v. Dr. Dheg Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:251.

OPTHALMOLOGIST:
Complainant went to opposite party for eye-operation in 1993 -Vision impaired -Consulted many other Eye Surgeons -Opposite party suggested re-operation in 1995- Complaint filed alleging negligence-No expert examined by complainant -Complainant failed to establish negligence.
Nirmalendu Paul v. Dr. P.K. Bakshi West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:79.

WRONGFUL REPRESENTATION ABOUT QUALIFICATION: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:
Wrongful representation about qualification -'Coagulation failure' due to Intra-Uterine Death -Complicated delivery case, child died in womb -Opposite party not qualified doctor only Auxilary Nurse and Midwife, undertook the case which was required to be handled by qualified doctor- Contention, no surgical intervention required, not acceptable -Stitches proves surgical intervention done for delivery of dead child -Opposite party not justified in keeping the patient in hospital to manage delivery of dead foetus, guilty of deficiency in service, liable to pay compensation along with cost.
Dilbagh Hussain v. Harjinder Kaur Punjab S.C.D.R.C III (2000) CPJ:17.