AICL Cases 2002

PEDIATRICIAN:
Child specialist not consulted after birth of baby: No abnormality in child noticed on date of discharge: Person with G-6-PD deficiency, born with it: Negligence on part of opposite party not proved. Complainant not entitled to any relief.
Parthasarathi Roychoudhury v. Dr. C.S. Darwan, West Bengal C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:504.

GYNECOLOGIST:
Compensation -Ovarian cyst removed witl1olltexamining the cause of distended bladder. Complainant not able to pass urine after surgery-Obstruction continued even after ten days- Principle of res ipsa loquitur applicable -Deficiency in service proved -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Dr. Machineni Rama Rao v. D. Padmavathi @ Padmasree Anhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:380.

PATHOLOGIST/ PEDIATRICIAN:
Doctor conducting tests, not liable for negligence of consultant physician: Not liable to pay compensation. Medical Negligence -Doctor who conducted necessary tests charged professional fee -Not prescribed any Medicine- Not liable for negligence of consultant physician of infant. Pathologist not liable to pay compensation. Gardinal Tablet Prescribed for infant of one month with out conducting tests-Condition deteriorated -Opposite party pediatrician negligent in rendering professional services therefore Liable to pay compensation.
Shyam sunder Tantia (Dr.) v. Deepika Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:411.

GENERAL PRACTITIONER: GANGRENE DUE TO WRONG INJECTION:
Injection administered at wrong side, Gangrene developed due to blood clotting -Thumb, finger, middle finger amputated -Negligence on part of opposite party proved -Complainant entitled to get compensation.
Dr. Gian Chand Aggarwal v. Darshana Devi Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:351.

PHYSICIAN : EMERGENCY TREATMENT:
Deceased complained of breathlessness - Negligence in attending the deceased -Oxygen, life saving medicines and other emergency medical care not given. Discharge Card not issued immediately after the death of the patient. No sufficient proof to accept the version of complainants produced, still there is negligence to some extent -Opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest.
Vijayamma v. Apollo Diagnostic Centre Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:230.

PHYSICIAN : MONITORING A PATIENT:
An old diabetic, heart patient left without monitoring blood sugar level under observation - Blood sugar of patient 38 against the minimum requirement of 80-Monitoring and observation of patient is must. Deficiency in service proved -Opposite parties negligent. in performing duty, liable to pay compensation with interest.
Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib (Charitable) Hospital v. D.K. Nayyar Punjab S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ :395.

POST OPERATIVE CARE:
Poor post operative treatment -Opposite party not able to identify the disease early till the complications arose -Patient brought back to Nursing Home on 2.8.1991, not operated till 5.8.1991- Post operative treatment done by doctors not qualified in Allopathic system -Complainant developed fecal fistula and bed-sore because of injection and deficiency in post operative care -Negligence on part of opposite party established -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Padma V. Sudha Nursing Home Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:53.

PHYSICIAN : STANDARD TREATMENT ALGORITHM FOLLOWED:
Standard treatment followed: Negligence on part of hospital not proved –Complainant claims compensation alleging gross negligence on the part of hospital -Whether there is any negligence ?[No].
Aruna Trikha v. Sehra Medical Centre, National C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:75.

NEUROSURGERY: CONSENT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR NEGLIGENCE:
Negligence in Surgery -Skull of deceased cut and removed for fixing clippers - Operation could not be completed due to non-availability of drill-Abandoned without fixing clippers -Availability of proper and functional drill machine not ensured -Negligence and carelessness on part of opposite parties proved -Complainant's consent to undertake the risk involved in surgery, not a valid defence for opposite parties Complainant entitled to get compensation.
Devendra Kumar Sharma v. Post Graduate institute of Medical Education & Research Chandigarh S C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:211.

GYNECOLOGY: DIFFICULT DIAGNOSIS:
Termination of Pregnancy: Two views possible on whether Ultrasonography would be able to identify ectopic pregnancy or not: No negligence can be attributed to doctors in not adopting this procedure: Negligence not proved -On Basis of Evidence on Record, Difficult for Doctor to Diagnose whether Appellant had Ectopic Pregnancy or not removal of Uterus Necessary to Save Life: Negligence not Proved, had ectopic pregnancy in cervical canal, only remedy is Hysterectomy for tackling excessive bleeding, in which event performance of test of Ultrasonogram would not have improved matter at all- When two views are possible on whether Ultrasonography would be able to identify following procedure i.e. D & C- Failure to send uterus and products of conception after surgery for histopathological examination by doctors has not resulted in any negligence on part of pregnancy had to be attended to and appropriate procedure to be adopted for terminating same, even if by doing total Hysterectomy -Further inference rightly drawn that appellant else or someone else on her behalf must have caused disappearance of consent forms obtained under M. T .P .Act, no grievance in that regard can be made -Appellant not able to establish negligence on part of respondents.
Vinitna Ashok v. Lakshmi Hospital (Supreme Court of lndia) (SC) I (2002) CPJ:4.

SURGERY: WRONG SIDE OPERATED:
Toe wrongly amputated: Amputation not necessary: Negligence of opposite party proved: Complainant entitled to compensation. Complainant received injury in great toe -Operation toe amputated -Wound not heeled up -Severe pain remained -Approached another doctor -Amputation not necessary -Complainant lost toe due to negligence of O.P.- Entitled to compensation.
Subraia Kumar Ghosh v. Dr. Adit Dey West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:431.

PHYSICIAN: STANDARD TREATMENT:
Treatment contrary to established medical standard, not proved: Medical negligence not proved: Complainant not entitled to compensation. Opposite party treated patient for diabetes and tuberculosis -Failed to get improvement in heart ailment –Patient died due to severe heart attack ~ No evidence in support of allegation -Treatment contrary to established medical standard, not proved - Medical negligence not established-Complainant not entitled to get compensation.
Dinesh Kaushal v. Dr. K.K. Khurana Chandigarh C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:414.

OPTHALMOLOGY: DENIAL OF PAYMENT IS NO DEFENCE:
Vision lost after cataract operation: Deficiency in service proved: Complainant entitled to compensation. District Forum h party deficient in service, awarded compensation -Hence appeal -Contention, surgery not performed by opposite party -Contention not acceptable -Operation performed by opposite party in the presence of witness, Rs. 9,000/- paid for that purpose -Appeal devoid of substance.
Ashpal Singh Kohli v. Sher Singh Delhi S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:73.

OPTHALMOLOGY: RARE COMPLICATION NOT DIAGNOSED:
Vision lost after cataract operation: O.P. failed to diagnose the problem correctly: Complainant entitled to compensation Complainant having severe pain in operated eye, discharged forcibly by opposite party -Medicines prescribed mechanic without, application of mind -What could not be diagnosed by opposite party, diagnosed by another doctor as endopthalmitis-Opposite party failed to diagnose the problem resulted loss of vision -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Saibaba Goud v. Mrs. L. Thomas Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:199.

Eye operated -Stitches found loose -Restitched -Vision lost -Negligence on part of opposite party established -Complainant entitled to compensation.
J.P. Goel v. Smt. Pushpa Verma Delhi S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:28.

ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON: ELABORATE EVIDENCE:
Specific allegation of carelessness and negligence on part of Surgeon as condition of leg did not improve after operation -Elaborate and long evidence required - Dispute cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction -Complaint dismissed.
Basudev Goswami v. Dr. Bhaskar Das West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:127.

ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON: QUALIFIED NURSE:
Bones fractured during exercise: Doctor not responsible for negligence of Nurse: Negligence not proved on part of Doctor. Femur Bones and Pelvis Bones fractured during exercise -Nurse appointed by Nursing Home -Doctor not responsible for negligence of Nurse -No negligence proved on part of Doctor -Complaint dismissed.
Tapas Das Gupta v. Dr. Kalyan Mukherjee West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:73.

OPTHALMOLOGY: INVESTIGATION ADVISED BUT NOT SEEN:
Complainant approached opposite party for removal of cataract -Opposite party advised B-scan report -Opposite party conducted operation without B-scan report -Vision lost -Complaint -There has been deficiency in service by opposite party.
Sourindra Mohan Ghosh v. Dr. D. V Pahwa West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:243.

Cataract operation: Expert evidence and complicated questions involved: Matter cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction. Deficiency in service alleged in cataract operation -Complicated questions of facts including expert evidence required -Matter cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction -Dismissed.
Heramerlal v. Ajoy Paul West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:248.

NO MONEY PAID:
Retina detached after operation -Contention, no amount charged after operation, amount paid as donation -Contention not acceptable -Amount paid for donation in reality was charges for operation -Services of opposite parties hired for consideration -Complainant is consumer -Forum not justified to hold that the case is not maintainable -Order set aside.
Bhajahari Chail v. Dr. Debasis Banerjee West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:21.

TOKEN AMOUNT: NO CONSIDERATION:
Consumer: Token amount given, as donation to Government Hospital, not amount to consideration to consideration: Complainant not a consumer. Wrong treatment given -Compensation claimed -Token amount given as donation to government Hospital, not amount to payment of consideration -Complainant not a consumer -Complaint not maintainable -Dismissed.
Narendra Singh Rastogi v. Shaskiya Gyara Panch Trust Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R ,C II (2002) CPJ:3

GYNECOLOGIST: ANESTHETIST:
Death due to Excessive Bleeding After Delivery: Total Compensation of Rs. 1,37,750/- Awarded is Proper on Various Head: State made Liable for said Amount: Directions Issued by Court. Doctor; Anaesthetist, Assistant not provided: Lapse and negligence on part of Hospital Authority proved: State liable for non-providing of Doctor or Anaesthetist or Assistant is Essentially Lapse on Part of Hospital Authorities and Hospital is Negligent: State is Liable.
Leela Bai v. Subastian (Kerala HC)(DB) II (2002) CPJ:363.

OPTHALMOLOGY:COMPLICATION DIAGNOSED AND REFERRED:
Eye damaged after operation: Impending expulsive haemorrhage, may occur in one out of 1000 cases: No negligence proved: Order awarding compensation set aside -Compensation awarded by Forum -Hence appeal -Operation performed after routine pre-operative checks -Impending expulsive haemorrhage -Surgery stopped, eye closed by pad, patient referred to hospital for better treatment –Such incident may occur in one out of 1000 cases -No negligence on part of O.P. proved -Order of Forum set aside -Complaint dismissed.
I. Ahmed (Dr.) v. Sumitra Biswas West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:275.

ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON:
Negligence in surgery: Operated leg effected by gangrene : Amputated : Gangrene could not occur overnight: Proper care not taken: Deficiency in service proved: compensation awarded. Total hip replacement operation conducted -Exact size of hip replacement not available -Opposite party adjusted the available size -Operated leg more in length than the other -Sensation to the left toe, foot and below knee lost on the first, second and third post operative days respectively - Leg effected by gangrene due to thrombosis or obstruction of blood supply -Leg above the knee amputated -Gangrene could not occur overnight but it is a slow process -Opposite party has not taken proper care or diligence to arrest it -Deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party established -Opposite party liable to pay compensation.
Ganta Mohana Lakshmi v. Dr. C. V Ratnam Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:144.

PSYCHIATRIST:
Over doses of sizopin tablets prescribed without W.B.C. Count test, not proved: Precautions taken by opposite party before prescribing medicine: Opposite party not guilty of medical negligence. Allegation, over-doses of Sizopin tablets prescribed without W.B.C. count test - Reaction of tablet developed Arganulocytosis -Allegation not proved by opinion of 11edical expert -Cause of vomiting, loose motion and high fever cannot be attributed to Sizopin - Precautions of W.B.C. count and differential count taken by opposite party before prescribing medicine -Treatment given against medical ethics not proved -Opposite party not guilty of medical negligence -Complaint dismissed.
Vaqar Mohammad Khan v. Dr. S.K. Tandon II (2002) CPJ:169.

PATHOLGIST/LABORATORY:
Requisite tests not conducted in time: Tantamount to deficiency in service: Complainant entitled to compensation. Omission to act in time -Compensation -Complainant suffering from fever -Referred to Apollo Hospital for certain tests -Requisite tests not conducted on the day of taking of sample -Contention, Microbiology Department of Hospital ceases to work after 5 p.m., not acceptable -Laboratory attached to hospital is 24 hours laboratory -Non- conducting of tests on the day of taking of samples tantamount to deficiency in service - Complainant entitled to compensation.
Shahul Hameed v. M/s. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:189.

OBSTETRICIAN GYNECOLOGIST:
Wrong treatment: No evidence produced to prove wrong treatment, resulting death of child: Allegations not proved: Order awarding compensation set aside Complainant carrying twin babies -Forceps applied in negligent way, Male baby died at the time of delivery -Compensation awarded by Forum -Hence appeal- No evidence produced to prove wrong treatment, resulting death of child -Placenta remained inside the uterus causing discomfort and pain, not proved -Complainant failed to prove the allegation -Order of Forum set aside.
Biswanath Chakraborty (Dr.) v. Mrs. China Sinha West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:329.

GYENECOLOGY WORK BEYOND QUALIFICATIONS:
Doctors not specialized, could not resort to surgical procedure. Doctors were practising in medicines know as GCIM -Not specialized in surgical procedures -Surgery performed - Whether they could resort to surgical procedure ? [No].
K. Mahabala Bhatt v. K. Krishna II (2002) CPJ:127.

NO CONSIDERATION: GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL:
Government hospital treatment: No fees paid: Complaint for deficiency in service not maintainable. Complainant's daughter took treatment in Government hospital ~ No fees/consideration paid. Complaint for deficiency in service not maintainable.
B.C. Joshi v. Dr. Sandeep Kumar Delhi S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:125.

PATHOLOGIST: LABORATORY: WRONG REPORT: BLOOD GROUP:
Laboratory report wrong: Treatment not started on the basis of report: No compensation. Blood examination charges refunded, cost paid -No treatment started on the basis of wrong report -No loss or injury suffered -Complainant not entitled to compensation.
Madhyamgram Consumers Welfare Society v. K.K. Chatterjee West Bengal S.C.D.R.C: II (2002) CPJ:381.

POST OPERATIVE CARE:
Negligence: Death after 40 days of surgery: Negligence not proved. Complainant's son died in the hospital -Alleges negligence. Open heart surgery proposed of the complainant's son was performed in a hospital by a doctor assisted by a team of doctors -Child died after 40 days of surgery -Alleges negligence -Whether there was any negligence? [No].
Prafulla Kumar Das v. Apollo Hospitals II (2002) CPJ:106.

SURGERY:
Negligence in Catheterisation. Complainant had difficulty in passing urine -Doctor did catheterisation -Blood found coming -Catheter removed Condition became serious -Admitted in P.G.I., Chandigarh - Went into operation -FORA below allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation -Hence appeal by complainant -Whether the compensation awarded was inadequate ? [Yes].
D.D. Trikha v. Dr. Devinder Mahant National C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:116.

OPERATIVE TREATMENT:
Complaint has been filed by wife of the deceased that her husband underwent a closed heart surgery -Alleges several acts of negligence -Whether there is any negligence ? [No].
Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College & Hospital National C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:131.

SURGERY:
Absence of expert evidence to prove negligence: Deficiency not presumed Negligence and laches not proved. Patient suffering from acute abdomen pain -Operation conducted after necessary tests -Condition deteriorating -Absence of expert evidence to prove negligence –Deficiency in service cannot be presumed- Negligence and laches not proved -Order awarding compensation set aside.
Manjit Singh Sandhu (Dr.) v. Uday Kant Thakur Jltarkhand S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:24.

SURGERY WITH UNCONTROLLED DIABETES:
Deceased a sugar/diabetes patient. Alleged, over dosage of glucose administered: No allegation of not controlling sugar level: Negligence not proved. Deceased was operated on 10.12.1991 for removal of uterus by the opposite party doctor -Discharged on 20.12.1991- Developed stomach pain. Again admitted on 5.4.1992- Opposite party got her admitted in another hospital on 10.4.1992 -Died on the same day -Alleges negligence because the deceased was administered over-dosage of glucose knowingly that deceased was a patient of sugar/diabetes -Whether there are any allegations of not controlling sugar level in complainant ? -(No] -Whether there is any negligence ? -[No].
Rajinder Singh Nandal v. Anmol Hospital National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:324.

PEDIATRICIAN:
Equipments : Absence of incubator in hospital : Temperature could well maintained by other means: No negligence proved. Absence of incubator in hospital- Temperature could well maintained by other means in absence of incubator - Child prematurely delivered, referred to better hospital -No negligence proved -Order awarding compensation set aside -No interference required.
Poonam Mangla v. Prem Nath Hospital National C.D.R. III (2002) CPJ:353.

CROSS EXAMINATION:
Examination of Experts : Discretion of Commission: Affidavits of Experts including Doctors can be Taken as Evidence: No Scope of Delay in Examination or Cross-examination of Witnesses: For Avoiding Delay District Forum or Commissions can evolve Procedure of Levying Heavy Cost where Adjournment is Sought by party.
J.J. Merchant (Dr. ) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (Supreme Court of India) (SC) III (2002) CPJ:8.

PHYSICIAN: NO INVESTIGATIONS:
I.C.U. patient, remained uncared, died: Negligence and laches proved: Compensation -Patient remained whole night in I.C.U. uncared, resulting in death -Instructions issued to Juniors -Patient not examined by doctor personally -Samples of blood and urine not collected by pathology section -Negligence and laches proved -Complainant entitled to compensation.
Sulnil Rungta (Dr.) v. Chandrashekhar Agarwal (Dr.) JharkJand S.C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:266.

OBSTETRICS: COMPLICATION- NO LINK WITH LSCS:
Link between surgery and development of fistula not proved : No negligence -Delivery by Surgery on 14.6.1996- U.V. Fistula suspected in January, 1997- No evidence produce to prove: link between surgery and development of fistula -Expert opinion, u. v. Fistula can happen in case of repeat caesarean operation -No negligence proved -Complaint rightly dismissed by Forum.
Beena Garg (Mrs.) v. Kailash Nursing Home National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:99.

NEGLIGENCE AGAIST HOSPITAL WITH OUT MAKING DOCTOR A PARTY TO PROCEDDING IS NOT MAINTAINABLE:
Negligence against doctor not permitted without making doctor party to proceedings -Complainant's mother died due to alleged negligence of hospital -Complainant not joined by father and brother -Case not supported by doctors who were close relatives of complainant- Allegation of negligence against doctor not permitted without making the doctor party to proceedings -Proper treatment given- Deceased's case not fit for surgery proved -Allegations of negligence and incompetence against hospital, staff and doctors not proved -Complaint dismissed with cost.
Basant Seth v. Regency Hospital Ltd. National C.D.R.C III (2002) CPJ:407.

OBSTETRICIAN:POST LSCS COMPLICATION:
Negligence in operation and post-operative care not proved: Absence of evidence: Deficiency in service not proved -Negligence in performing operation and in rendering post-operative care -Uterine arteries cut off, bleeding could not be controlled, which resulted death -Allegation not proved -No satisfactory proof produced to prove negligence in conducting LSCS- Bleeding from mouth and nose also noticed which cannot be due to negligence in surgery -Patient died of cardio respiratory arrest and hypovolemic shock due to DIC, in a case of pregnancy induced hypertension -No evidence produced to prove negligence -Deficiency in service not proved -Complaint dismissed.
Sayed Mohammed Owais Quadri v. Dr. Neena Desai Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:52.

Negligence in surgery not proved.
Bimla Jain v. N.P. Singh Hospital, National C.D.R.C III (2002) CPJ:260
Premlata Dhakol!ia v. Dr. Dheeraj Garha National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:224

PHYSICIAN: FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE COMPLICATION OF SJS:
Negligence in treatment proved: Compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. Complainant had mild fever and attack -Medicine prescribed without following safety measures and test dose -Total vision lost in both eyes due to severe reaction of medicine -Doctor responsible to ensure about reaction of drug -Negligence of doctor proved - Complainant entitled to compensation with interest @ 12% p.a.
Devi Rani v. N. Prakash Rao Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:123.

Complainant sustained injury -Underwent several surgeries in the Hospital- Developed other diseases Died on 7.8.1998 during pendency of the complaint -Whether there is any negligence ? [No].
S. Gurunathan (Dead) (Dr.) v. Vijaya Health Centre National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:211.

DISCHARGE AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE:
Patient discharged at instance of complainant: No negligence -Negligence in treatment not proved -Patient discharged at the instance of complainant -Complaint dismissed.
R.S. Sharma v. Gulam Zilani Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:272.

Revision dismissed in default, restoration not allowed -Medical Negligence -Complaint dismissed by lower Forums.Revision dismissed in default -Restoration not allowed.
K.C. Jaiswal v. Telecom District Engineer National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:156.

SERVICES RENDERED FREE IN MILITARY HOSPITAL : COMPLAINANT NOT CONSUMER:
Services rendered free in military hospital -Complainant not consumer -Complaint dismissed by lower Forums -No interference required in revision.
Brig. A.S. Sibia (Rtd.) v. Union of lndia National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:317.

DELAY IN SURGERY:
Surgery delayed, no Anaesthetist present: Negligence proved. Surgery delayed as no Anaesthetist present for performing caesarean section -Negligence/ deficiency in service proved -O.P. liable to pay compensation with interest @ 12% p.a.
M. Radhakrishna Murthy (Dr.) v. Parakulam Elishama Babu Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:193.

WRONG DIAGNOSIS:
Wrong Diagnosis -Absence of expert evidence regarding diagnostic test of FNAC or line of treatment adopted as against open biopsy-Basic tenet of medical negligence not proved -Complaint dismissed by lower Forums - No interference required.
Rani Devi v. Dr. S.R. Agarwal National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:136.

Wrong line of treatment not proved: Patient given treatment for diabetes and TB, died of heart attack. No negligence, deficiency in service.
Dinesh Kaushal v. Dr. K;K. Khurana National C.D.R.C. III (2002) CPJ:297.