AICL Cases 2001

BURDEN OF PROOF UPON COMPLAINANT:
Medical Negligence -Burden of Proof -Complaint of Medical Negligence -Burden of proof on complainant-Complaint dismissed -Appeal- No negligence proved -Appeal dismissed with costs.
Amar Singh v. Frances Newton Hospital Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:8.

NON-SUPPLY OR COPIES OF HOSPITAL: ILLEGAL:
Non-supply of copies of hospital records -Complainant legally entitled to have copies of document, not proved -No negligence or deficiency in service on part of opposite party.
Chandrasekar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:137.

PRIMA FACIE NEGLIGENCE NOT FOUND: DISMISSED IN LIMINE:
-Medical Negligence -Complaint filed -No prima facie negligence -Complaint dismissed in limine.
M. Dravidamani v. S. Paramasivam Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:68.

WRONG DIAGNOSIS NOT AMOUNT TO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:
Wrong Diagnosis-Complainant having severe chest pain -Undergone coronary angiogram and Angioplastry -Not satisfied with treatment given -Admitted in another hospital, undergone by-pass surgery -Compensation claimed -Diagnosis is forming of opinion on examination of patient-opinion may vary from one expert to another-wrong diagnosis not amount to deficiency in service, no compensation.
Chandrasekar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 137.

DOCTOR NOT QUALIFIED AND AUTHORISED TO PRACTISE ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE:
Doctor not qualified and authorised to practise allopathic Medicine prescribed pain aggravated: Medical negligence established granted compensation ". Doctor not qualified and authorised to practise in Allopathic system of medicines -.Prescribed Allopathic drugs for minimising chest pain -Pain aggravated -Prima facie case of medical negligence established -Complainant entitled to get compensation.
Avtar Singh Bhatora v. Dr. Swarn Parkash Garg Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:197.

POST OPERATIVE CARE:
Complainant alleged at her old mother died in the hospital because of medical negligence. Also alleged that the doctors should have taken patient to post- operative ICU, which was not done -State Commission dismissed the complaint- Hence appeal -Whether there is any deficiency in service/negligence which caused death of the patient ? -[No].
S.K. lyengar v. Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, National C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:23.

NEGLIGENCE:
Complainant's son was admitted in a hospital for treatment of his back lower and upper limbs -Subsequently the patient had cardiac arrest -Died -Complaint alleges medical negligence in the treatment- Whether there is any negligence on the part of doctors in:' treating’ the deceased patient ? -[Yes].
Bhajan Lal Gupta v. Mool Chand Kharati Ram Hospital. National C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 31.

DIAGNOSIS WRONG:
Pathological examination done in - nature of report, no treatment advised: No negligence on parties proved. Wrong Diagnosis- Compensation -Complainant's wife suffering from some disease, taken for pathological examination -Contention, wrong pathological report given, patient suffering cancer not diagnosed -Damages claimed -Pathological examination done in the nature of report, no treatment advised -No fault/negligence on behalf of opposite parties proved - Opposite parties not liable for death of complainant's wife -Complaint dismissed.
Raj Kumar v. Dr. Ajay Gupta Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:495.

ACCEPTABLE SURGERY:
Compound comminuted fracture patella -Operated- Lower portion not united with rest of patella causing pain and restricted movement -Compensation claimed -Fractured pieces repaired -Plaster changed twice -Complainant still to undergo further treatment -No expert evidence produced to prove negligence of opposite party -Treatment not against prescribed norms under medical jurisprudence -Complainant not entitled to any compensation.
Ashok Kumar v. Dr. Suresh Sharma Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 478.

MEDICALLY ACCEPTED TREATMENT:
Negligence in Treatment Given -Meat piece stuck in throat -Perforation caused by process of dislodging the piece into the stomach, ultimately resulted in death -Method adopted in negotiating the foreign body medically accepted -No vital sign justifying perforation till deceased discharged -No negligence against opposite parties proved -Complainant not entitled to any relief.
M.J. Joseph v. Dr. P.J. John Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:409.

NOT WRONG SURGERY:
Non-removal of Cord After Operation -Compensation -Eye operated -Thread cord not removed, resulted in loss of vision -Expert opinion to support the allegation of negligence not produced -Loss of vision attributable to wrong surgery not observed by any renowned Physicians -Complainant failed to prove the allegations -Not entitled to any relief.
Nirmalendu Paul v. Dr. P.K. Bakshi West Bengal S.C.D.R.C I (2001) CPJ:466.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
Hospital liable for the consequence -Hospital -liability of- Hospital responsible for acts of its employees -Negligence can be attributed to the functionaries and authorities. Hospital liable for the consequence.
Meena Vyas v. City Nursing Home and Hospital Punjab S:C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 172.

SPONGE LEFT IN ABDOMEN AFTER LSCS SURGERY:
Compensation -Sponge left negligently in the process of caesarean operation for the delivery of child -Complainant's condition deteriorated -Operated again -Sinus explored, foreign body (old retained sponge) found -Vital organ in body remained disturbed -Nothing cogent brought on record to discard the record of second operation -- Opposite party guilty of negligence. Complainant entitled to compensation.
Meena Vyas v. City Nursing Home and Hospital Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 172.

STERILISATION OPERATION NOT 100% SAFE IN CASE OF FEMALES:
Child conceived after sterilisation operation -Compensation claimed -Operation not 100% safe in case of female sterilisation -Pregnancy can occur even after sterilisation operation -No negligence can be attributed to doctor if due care and caution has been taken-Complaint dismissed.
Sayed Amzad Husain Naqviv. Laklmnpur Hospital, Through Dr. V.K. Aggarwal Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 130.

Negligence committed in Surgery:
Compensation -Complainant approached opposite party's Hospital for surgery for increasing the height -Cortiocotomy surgery with external fixator done -Left leg remained shorter by 1 & 1/2 inch than the right leg -A healthy girl after the surgery needs the aid of walker as she had to lean on the left -Burden shifted to opposite parties to substantiate their case that the lifting of the left limb due to a complication which developed later -Contention, complication arose because of failure to adhere to instructions cannot be supported -Case pleaded by opposite parties for present deformity not substantiated negligence/deficiency in service established -Complainant entitled to get compensation.
Nadiya v. Proprietor, Fathima Hospital Kerala S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 93.

Titanium Plates:
Defective Goods of Inferior Quality Supplied -Legs badly fractured -Titanium plates fixed after operation -Complainant felt pain in left leg -Clear crack in plates seen in the X-ray - District Forum Held that the plate broke due to pressure put by patient-appeal-plate sent to competent laboratory for test-reports suggest that plates of standard quality-no relief-order of forum upheld.

BLOOD REPORT DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT LABS: VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE INVOLVED: DECLINED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
Blood report of baby conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories, results showed different reading of bilirubin -Negligence alleged on par(of physician and pathological laboratories -Dispute involved consideration of voluminous evidence -Forum declined to exercise jurisdiction -Order of Forum upheld in appeal.
Supriti Modak v. Gokul Ch. Modak West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 219.

Complainant not turned up for cross-examination, failed to substantiate the allegations levelled in complaint: Complaint dismissed for want for evidence. Premature attempt to separate placenta without even waiting for spontaneous delivery - Patient died-Complainant not turned up for cross-examination failed to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint -Absence of proof by way of evidence, averments of complaint by themselves cannot be accepted -Complaint dismissed for want of evidence.
Rangannagari Yadav Reddy v. Dr. Vijaya Kumari Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 391.

ERROR OF JUDGMENT IN DIAGNOSIS NOT NEGLIGENCE:
Error of Judgment in Diagnosis not contributed to type of suffering: Opposite party absolved from negligence: No deficiency in service: No compensation -Histo-pathology Cytology Report issued by opposite party on the biopsy specimen - Report diagnosed the case as sclerosing adenosis, post inflammatory state and terminal ductal hyperplasia Examination of same slide and block about 40 days after disclosed that, "patient having an advanced breast cancer" -Patient suffering from cancer confirmed -Error of judgment on part of opposite party established -Contention, wrong diagnosis recorded in the Histopathology Report resulted in avoidable sufferings and ultimate death of patient -Contention not acceptable. Error of judgement not contributed to the type of suffering which the patient had to undergo -Ailment if would have been detected 45 days earlier, position would have been no different -Opposite party absolved from the stigma of negligence -Complainant failed to establish deficiency in service, not entitled to any compensation.
M.P. Balamani v. Medical Administrator, Ravi Kirloskar Memorial Hospital & Research Centre Karnataka S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 483.

Examination casual & careless:
Loss of vision: Failed to proved allegations of negligence: No relief - Casual and careless examination by opposite party resulted in loss of vision -Complainant failed to prove the allegations of negligence on part of opposite party of not diagnosing glaucoma, which was diagnosed with next ophthalmologist so not entitled to any relief.
T.N. Ghosh v. Dr. V. Pahwal West Bengal S..C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:473.

FAILURE TO DO INVESTIGATIONS:
Fracture: X-ray essentially required after two to three days of plaster: Failed to insure instructions: Liable to pay compensation -Failure of Advice Communication -Compensation -Hand fractured -Plastered ~ Union of the two pieces of bones not according to proper alignment -Opposite parties aware of the fact that X-ray essentially required after two to three days-Failed to ensure that instructions given in writing and patient's relatives have been made to understand the importance of repeated X-ray -Liable to pay compensation.
Laxmi v. Dr. S.K. Govil Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 335.

TOKEN PAYMENT IN GOVT. HOSP. DOES NOT BRING CONSUMER JURISDICTION:
Payment of token money for registration not alter the position of doctors & hospital: No jurisdiction to entertain the matter -Consumer-Service -Deficiency in service in riot taking proper pre and post-operative precautions - Complainant admitted for delivery of child in Government Hospital- Services rendered free of charge -Payment of a token amount of Rs. 2/= for registration purpose not alter the position of doctors and hospital- District Forum erroneously held that complainant was consumer, entitled to compensation -Forum had ho jurisdiction to entertain the matter-Complaint not maintainable, liable to be dismissed.
N. Rohan (Yadav) Dr. (Smt.) v. Smt. Manorama Tamrakar Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:4O2.

MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT:
Stones removed without surgery: Failed to remove: Refund of Fee Charged with interest. Advertisement, stones removed without surgery -Kidney Stone Centre failed to remove the stone from complainant's prostatic urethra - District Forum ordered for refund of fee charged along with interest Hence appeal -Order of Forum upheld in appeal.
Kidney Stone Centre v. Khem Singh@ Khem Chand Chandigarh C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:436.

POSTOPERATIVE UNRELATED COMPLICATION:
Careless/negligent operation -Patient operated for appendicitis -Developed respiratory trouble after operation -Died due to cerebral attack. Allegation, cerebral attack occurred due to careless/negligent operation, patient did not regain consciousness due to wrong application of anaesthesia -Allegation not established by expert evidence - Deficiency in service on part of opposite parties not proved -Complainant not entitled for any relief.
Ramesh Chandra Goswami v. Dr. Dipak Banerjee West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 374.

INCIDENTAL EXPESES IN GOVT. HOSP. DOES NOT MAKE A CONSUMER CASE:
Surgery conducted: Paid incidental charges: No fee charged, not a consumer
M. T .P. surgery conducted -Uterus got burst, pus developed on permanent basis - Compensation claimed -Contention, Rs.100/ -for room rent and Rs. 25/ -for glucose charged -Contention not acceptable- Person under treatment has to pay incidental expenses -No fee charged for operation, complainant not a consumer.
Tahira Khatoon v. Governntent of Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:354.

DETAILS OF SRGERY NOT STATED IN DISCHARGE CARD:
Surgery diagnosed at L4-L5 level, performed at L5-S1 level: Negligence proved. Failure to conduct operation at L4-L5 level -Surgery diagnosed to be conducted at L4-L5 level, surgery performed at L5-S1 level -Details of operation not stated in discharge summary. Consultant pathologist not examined, pathological report cannot gain probative force -X-ray showed laminactomy at L5-S1 and MRI L4-L5 posterio-lateral and central disc protrusion - Negligence in performing surgery proved -Complainant entitled to compensation along with interest.
Sobhana Natarajan v. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd. Kerala S.C.D.R.C II (2001) CPJ:. 553.

WORKING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF QUALIFICATIONS:
Arm fractured: Plaster applied: No cure: Doctor not qualified to provide such services on charging fees: Liable to pay compensation. Complainant's minor daughter suffered fracture on left arm -Taken to opposite party -Applied plaster -No cure -Taken to doctor -Complaint -District Forum granted Rs. 50,000/- as compensation - Appeal -Opposite party not a qualified doctor -Not authorise to provide such services on charging fees -Compensation rightly awarded.
Nachhatar Singh v. Malkeet Singh Punjab S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 237.

WRONG BLOOD REPORT:REFUND FEES:
Blood report wrongly given: Sample tested from another laboratory: No adverse consequences followed: Compensation reduced in appeal: Opposite party liable to refund fees and cost. Blood tests conducted negligently -Wrong report given -Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each - Hence appeal -Complainants suspicious about the report, got their samples tested from another laboratory -No adverse consequences followed -Compensation awarded on the higher side, reduced to Rs. 2,000/- each -Opposite party liable to refund the fees and cost of litigation.
Purohit Charitable Laboratory v. Vijay Kumar Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 239.

COMPENSATION: QUANTUM:
Compensation- Quantum -Deceased aged about 45 years at the time of death -Husband and children lost love, affection, consortium and companionship -Entitled to compensation of Rs; 1,00,000/- -Opposite parties liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards expenditure incurred towards the treatment.
S. Kishan Rao v. Sudha Nursing Home Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 478.

COMPLAINT: MAINTAINABILITY:
Medical Negligence, Maintainability - Complaint filed -No particular name or act of negligence attributed in complaint -Complaint is maintainable.
Kunhikrishnan Nambiar P. V. v. Shree chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science & Technology Kerala S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ:86.

COMPLAINT FILED BY L.RS.:MAINTAINABLE:
Legal Representatives of Deceased -"Actio Personalis Mortur Cum Persona" - Patient died-, Complaint by L.Rs. -Maxim actio personalis mortur cum persona has no application -L.Rs. can file complaint -Case Law discussed.
Kunhikrishnan Nambiar P. V. v. Shree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science & Technology Kerala S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ:86.

NO RELIEF AFTER OPERATION:
Condition not improved after operation: Expert opinion & elaborate evidence required: Dispute cannot be decided in summary procedure: Complaint dismissed.
Operation performed for setting right the leg -Condition not improved after operation -Negligence and carelessness alleged -Allegation has to be examined after obtaining expert opinion- Elaborate evidence required -Dispute can not be decided in summary procedure -Complaint dismissed.
Basudev Goswami v. Dr. Bhaskar Das West Bengal S.C.V.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 262.

MOP IN ABDOMEN:
Gauze piece left in the wound while performing operation: Allegation proved by Medical Expert: Deficiency in service proved: Liable to pay compensation. Deficiency in Service -Moping Gauze piece left in the wound while performing operation - Complaint dismissed by Forum -Hence appeal -Appellant continuously suffering from pain, pus oozing out from the wound -Allegation proved by the opinion of Medical Expert -Deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties proved -Order of Forum set a side - Complainant entitled to compensation.
Beti Bai Saxena v. S.L. Mukherjee Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 251.

NEGLIGENCE CAN NOT BE ASSUMED:
Negligence cannot be assumed: Direct connection between injury suffered &: treatment given necessary. To prove medical negligence high degree of probability is required -Negligence cannot be assumed if something went wrong with the patient -There must be direct connection between injury suffered and the treatment given.
P. Venkata lakshmi v. Dr. Y. Savitha Devi Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:402.

POST DISCHARGE CARE:
No evidence produced to establish negligence: Appropriate precautions not taken by Complainants after discharge: Opposite parties not responsible for mental handicap caused to child: Complaint false, dismissed. Irreparable mental handicap caused to the child -Compensation -Allegation, child suffered jaundice right from the time of its birth -illness not checked, condition of child became serious after discharge -Discrepancy in statement -Complainant and his witnesses stated wrong date of discharge in order to support the claim. No cogent evidence produced to establish negligence in treatment of child Complainant and his wife neither took appropriate precautions after discharge, nor consulted any qualified physician, themselves responsible for mental handicap of child -Opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any alleged deterioration in the health of child after discharge from hospital -Complaint false and frivolous, dismissed.
Lalluram Meena v. Dr. S. Mathur Rajasthan S.C.O.R.C. III (2001) CPJ:9.

Second operation conducted without advising any test to know whether secondaries have developed: Second operation amounts to deficiency: Entitled to compensation. Failure to refer the patient to Cancer Hospital -Patient brought to the hospital at an advanced stage -Surgery performed without conducting any biopsy test -Lump reoccurred -Patient again operated -Opposite party should have deterred from proceeding with the second surgery but refer the patient to Cancer Hospital -Without advising any test to know whether secondaries have developed, to conduct second operation amounts to deficiency -Surgery not only unjustified but ill-advised -Complainants entitled to compensation.
S. Kishan Rao v. Sudha Nursing Home Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 478.

Sponge left in abdomen:
Deficiency in Service proved: Entitled to compensation and cost of second operation with interest. Sponge left in the abdomen during caesarean operation- Complainant had to be operated again for removal of sponge. prima facie case of medical negligence proved -Respondent had not taken much care which a doctor of ordinary skill should have taken -Complainant entitled to damages done due to negligence and carelessness -Entitled to compensation and cost of second operation along with interest.
Harvinder Kaur v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Chawla Punjab S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 143.

Sulpha medicine prescribed without resorting to necessary test not proved:
Complaint dismissed -Sulpha medicine prescribed without resorting to necessary tests -Complainant suffered injury due to reaction from medicine -Prescription chit not produced -Opposite party administered such medicines not established -Complainant failed to establish alleged negligence on part of opposite party -Complaint dismissed by Forum -Order upheld in appeal.
K. V. Narayani v. Dr. P. Gopinathan, Kerala S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 498

Vision lost after cataract operation:
Treatment abandoned without opposite party's approval: Consulted several specialists: Deficiency in Service not proved. Vision lost after cataract operation -Compensation claimed --Complainant abandoned the prescribed treatment without opposite party's approval. Consulted several eye specialists, underwent laser treatment and other tests which should not have been undertaken. Complainant himself responsible to the condition of eye -Opposite party riot in any way medically negligent in providing the treatment- No deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party proved –Complaint dismissed.
Yoginder Beri v. Grover Eye and E.N.T.Hospital Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. III (2001) CPJ: 106.

Wrong Treatment:No evidence produced to support the allegation: No negligence of doctor proved: Complaint dismissed. Sudden pain in right knee -Medicines injected -Allegation, wrong , treatment given by injecting injection -Injection had an adverse affect, whole of leg developed pus -No evidence produced to support the allegation -Corticosteroids, a prescribed injection, one of tJ.1e methods is applied by doctors -No negligence on part of doctor established -Complaint dismissed -Order of Forum upheld in appeal.
Laxmi Narain v. Eshita Nursing Home and Amish X-Ray Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 394.

FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT:
Treatment certificate demanded for prosecuting assailants in Criminal Court: No compensation Complainant assaulted by enemies, admitted in Government Hospital -Certificate and other particulars regarding treatment not given. Forum awarded compensation -Hence appeal -Complainant legally entitled to have to copies of documents, not proved -No material regarding payment of hospital charges produced -Complainant demanded treatment certificate for prosecuting her assailants in Criminal Court -Complaint frivolous, order of Forum set side -Complainant liable to pay cost.
Joslin Chrysostom v. S. Lourdu TamilNadu S.C.D:R. C. I (2001) CPJ: 126