AICL Cases 2004

Orthopaedics:
Viklesh Dixit (Smt.) v. Dr. R.K. Singhal Uttaranchal S.C.D.R.C.1(2004) CPJ:123.

Shaft of right humorous broken -Operation conducted -Portion below wrist of right hand paralysed. Alleged nerve of hand cut at time of shaft of humerous plaster due to negligence of doctor conducting operation -Allegation not proved in absence of reliable evidence supported by expert evidence –Chief medical office wrote post traumatic wrist drop. - Failure of operation not amount to negligence. Every operation is not a case of negligence. Failure of operation is also not a case of negligence. The term negligence is defined to mean absence or lack of care.-Complaint rightly dismissed by Forum.

Prostrate operation:
Savitri Singh (Smt.) v. Dr. Ranbir Pd. Singh Bihar S.C.D.R.C. 1(2004) CPJ:25.

Complainant's husband suffering with problem of enlarged prostrate, operated upon by TURP by bladder neck incision instead of electrolysis method (it is mere allegation) – Post operative gas under the diaphragm suggested perforation due to intestinal obstruction. Perforation of bladder is rare and due to coughing or obturator jump. Perforation in bladder and rectum closed with loop of sigmoid colon. Later Colostomy performed under local. Alleged, first operation performed by O.P. for removal of prostrate gland because of alleged failure of surgery earlier. Condition deteriorated after surgery due to Asthma, LVH and old age. Ultimately patient died. Allegation not proved in absence of reliable evidence supported by expert evidence and hence doctor not liable for negligence just because someone else of better skill or knowledge would have prescribed different treatment -Skill of medical practice differs from doctor to doctor, average skill enough. It was incumbent upon complainant to prove negligence on the part of O.P. which complainant failed to substantiate the allegation -Complaint dismissed.

No consideration in a surgical case:
Rabinarayan Sahoo v. Dr. B. Jayaram Patra National C.D.R.C 1(2004) CPJ:3.

Patient died after gall bladder stone removal surgery at government rune hospital -Lack of proper care alleged, death of patient -Forum held, doctor negligent in conducting, operation, awarded compensation -Hence appeal -No consideration paid for treatment –payment for pathological tests before operation be taken as considaration. Non-production of bed-head tickets and death report cannot support main allegation of medical negligence -Complaint not maintainable, No negligence or deficiency of service alleged for pathological test and same can not be mixed up with allegation of negligence during operation and so also consideration for operation. dismissed -Revision against order- Dismissed.

Abandoned the medical case:
Varanasi Subrahamanyam v. Dr. G. Ravi Kumar Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 1(2004) CPJ:125.

Complainant's daughter having pain in stomach, suffered acute perspiration followed by vomiting –1st doctor thought of gastritis and left for Vijaywada, patient became unconscious, so admitted to 2nd doctor, who treated her with calmpose and largectil for controlling convulsions due to encephalitis and advised her to be shifted as no facilities for CSF,CAT scan available and left for his other nursing Home. Mother of 17 year old girl said that she had head injury due to hit with edge of table on 1st day itself. Condition deteriorated even after treatment -Patient shifted to another doctor, died -Compensation claimed -Deficiency in service on part of both doctors proved -Patient not referred for any test, not advised to be admitted as in-patient, not referred to any other hospital with better facilities, doctors abruptly left, leaving patient to her fate when she was in critical condition being unconscious -First doctor treated patient for about 4 days during which condition deteriorated beyond repairs -Second doctor started treatment when patient already in unconscious state -Both doctors liable to pay compensation of Rs 2,00,000/= -Liability to be shared at 3 : 1 ratio. and Rs 5000/ as cost to be shared at 1:1.

Snake bite:
Bijaya Lal Biswal (Dr.) v. Purushottam Panda Orissa S.C.D.R.C. 1(2004) CPJ:110.

Complainant's son bitten by snake -Alleged, prescribed treatment, but anti snake venom medicine not administered by doctor - Pleadings by themselves do not prove a case -Facts proved by evidence / material on record no symptoms and signs of snake venom poisoning-Snake bite suspected by doctor but Question mark put on prescription -No anti-venom drugs to be administered unless symptoms appeared -Advised treatment not wrong -No medical negligence on part of doctor proved -Complaint dismissed.

Blood transfusion/ Hepatitis B:
Mohammed Azim Rehman Shaikh v. Dr. Sanjay Sirdeshpande Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 1(2004) CPJ:114.

Blood transfusion of mother urgently required -Complainant approached O.P.'s Blood Bank for giving blood to mother -O.P. declared complainant's blood not suitable, contained Hepatitis B -Hence complaint -Forum simply shirked its duty, relegated complainant to other Forum -Matter remitted back in appeal for consideration afresh.

Surgery for filariasis: Unfair trade practice:
Dr. B. Ashok Kumar v. Kamma Narshimha Swamy Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C.1 (2004) CPJ:114.

Elephantiasis of any type would be cured by operation -O.P. misled complainant, performed surgery, ultimately advised him to go to Bombay for further treatment -Gross negligence, deficiency In service proved -Damages awarded.

Blood Transfusion/Hepatitis B:
Jagat Narayan Chaube v. Dr. Achal sepaha Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 1(2004) CPJ :435

Deceased an old case of Diabetes Mellitus with Chronic Renal Failure, under treatment of several doctors -Kidney practically defunct resulting oedema plus and collection of fluid in body -Patient already in critical condition before reaching hospital -Dialysis carried out -Blood of complainant's son not administered as not tested -Doctors cannot be blamed for that - Alleged, Australian Antigen, i.e., Hepatitis B developed during blood transfusion -Allegation false -Australian Antigen does not develops instantaneously, virus take minimum 6 weeks to 6 months to have a reaction -Hepatitis B might have developed before coming to O.P. Hospital -O.P. Hospital not liable -All necessary precautions, parameters recorded -Allegation of non attending diabetes ailment false -Doctor diagnosed, treated and taken proper care, no negligence proved -- Complaint dismissed.

Gynecology:
Prabha Choudhary (Dr. smt.) v. Shantilal Jain Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C.1 (2004) CPJ:307.

Alleged negligence in surgery -Non-removal of ovary at time of hysterectomy operation -Compensation awarded by Forum-- Hence appeal-Removal of ovary whether necessary, not corroborated by expert –Surgical removal of cystic portion of ovary, usually followed by cyst formation in remaining ovarian tissue - Negligence not proved -Order of Forum set aside.

Critical inoperable patient:
Rohini Hospital (Managing Director) v. L. Sunil Reddy Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:299.

Deceased suffering from ulcer, admitted in hospital, remained there for 3 days, tests conducted, blood transfusion and I. V. fluids given -Condition deteriorated - Contention, conservative treatment given instead of immediate surgery -Contention not acceptable -Deceased seen by qualified Surgeon, condition continuously monitored - Condition too critical, deceased would not withstand surgery -No negligence/ deficiency proved -Order allowing complaint set aside in appeal.

Varicose veins/Gangrene:
Lekshmanan v. R. Speekantan M.S. National C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:26.

Surgery advised for treatment of Varicose Vein on leg -Condition became bad despite treatment- Leg amputated -Complaint dismissed by Forum as negligence not proved - Appeal against order dismissed -No interference required in revision.



Removal of organ with out confirming cancer:
Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Smt. Raisan Uttaranchal S.C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:257.

Organ removed on basis of pathologic report -Removed organ sent for further examination, no cancer found -Confirmatory diagnosis not given in report -O.P. should have advised further laboratory investigation before operation -O.P. persisted for operation without getting confirmation from some other doctor ~ Negligence proved -O.Ps. liable to pay compensation.

Opthalmology:
Kumud Garg (Dr. (Smt.) v. Raja Bhatia Uttaranchal S.C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:369.

Complainant's daughter having pressure in right eye, operated upon -Negligence in operation alleged - Compensation awarded by Forum -Hence appeal -Patient having congenital cataract, a disease by birth, has subnormal vision in operated eye with convergent squint -Sight improved after operation -Merely because operation not totally succeeded, doctor cannot be held negligent – No negligence on part of doctor proved -Order of Forum factually incorrect, quashed -Complaint dismissed.

Wrong injection:
P Sudhakar v. Gowri Gopal Hospital Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:329

Complainant's on having stomach pain, diagnosed' Acute Appendicitis', immediate surgery advised -Injection 'Farcuran' administered by Sister mistaking it for analgesic - Patient went into total muscular paralysis cyanosis and Brady-cardia, died -Sheer negligence proved -O.Ps. (Hospital, doctor, sister) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Orthopaedics:
Mam Chand v. Dr. G.S. Mangat of Mangat Hospital National C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:79.

Complainant met with accident, operated, 'L' plating fixed gangrene developed -Leg amputated - Contention, equipment not properly sterilized, no gap left between sutures for oxygen to have access drainage tube no inserted-compensation awarded by State Commission - Hence appeal -Allegation not proved by material on record absence of evidence in support -Insertion of drainage tube led to complications and increased risk -Non- insertion not amounts to medical negligence -Complaint dismissed.

Orthopaedics:
R. Ponnappan (dentist) (Dr.) v. V Mohan (Teacher) Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:518.

Negligence in operation -Elbow injured -Plaster of Paris applied -Excessive pain -Re-operation by other doctor -Failure on part of complainant to inform doctor about persisting pain -Absence of evidence proving lack of care or negligence -Complaint rightly dismissed.

Performing Procedure Negligently:
CDR Hospitals v. Mrs. Nirmala Manaseh National C.D.R.C. 1 (2004) CPJ:70.

Negligence -Saline ampoule carelessly broken, glass pieces got embedded in complainant's face and neck - Alleged, blisters appeared ort face due to use of "spirit" -Compensation and cost awarded by State Commission.Hence appeal -Blisters developed in areas not affected during accident -Proved –Negligence / deficiency in service proved -Order upheld.

Obstetrics:
Mohanan v. Prabha G. Nair (Supreme Court of India) (SC) 1 (2004) CPJ:21.

Death after delivery, due to profuse bleeding : Culpability could be established on proper analysis of expert evidence: Quashing of complaint not justified order, set aside. Death caused by Negligence: Death of wife of appellant after delivery of dead child due to profuse bleeding: Appellant did not get full opportunity to produce evidence before Magistrate: Negligence of doctor could be ascertained only by scanning material, if any, and expert evidence: Single Judge not justified in quashing complaint at threshold where culpability could be established only on proper analysis of expert evidence adduced by complainant: Judgment of single judge set aside: Magistrate directed to consider matter in accordance with law: 1st Respondent being medical practitioner, if any application for bail tiled, same shall be favourably considered by Magistrate -Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 3O4 A -Criminal Procedure Code 1973- Section 482.

Ophthalmology:
Karimbhai Desai v. Dr. Mahendra J. Thakkar Gujarat S.C.D.R.C.

Complainant had eye infection -Vision lost despite treatment -Compensation claimed -Ailment rightly diagnosed by doctor -Proper treatment given -No negligence/ deficiency in service on part of doctor proved -Complaint rightly dismissed.

Orthopaedics:
Soni Kumari v. Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat. Bihar S.C.D.R.C. 471.

Wrong treatment -Burden of proof correspondingly greater in charge of professional negligence against medical man -Doctor not negligent simply because something went wrong -Alleged, complainant admitted in O.P.'s clinic, O.P. plastered her leg which caused infection, resulted into amputation -Allegation not proved in absence of evidence On-record-Complaint dismissed-

Gall Bladder operation:
K.M. Bhandari (Dr.) v. Mrs. Tara Mathur Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. 99

Gall Bladder operation performed -Swelling of pancreas alleged after surgery -Absence of evidence and expert opinion in support of allegation -Forum erred in awarding compensation - Order set aside in appeal.

Paediatrics:
P. Venkata Lakshmi v. Dr. Y. Savitha Devi National C.D.R.C. 14.

Complications developed at delivery time -Baby having breathing and other related problems, shifted to another hospital -Negligence alleged against attending doctors -Complaint dismissed by State Commission as negligence not proved by expert evidence -Hence appeal -Medical literature produced by complainant not considered by State Commission -Matter remanded back for rehearing.

Hemina Hitesh Kotak. Dr. Ashok Nathwani National C.D.R.C. 11.

Enhancement of -Death due to negligence of doctor proved -Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by State Commission -Hence appeal -Deceased aged about 31 years, left behind widow, minor child and parents, earning Rs. 4,061/- per month, had every possibility of increase in salary -Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs.

Orthopaedics:
G.D. Singh (Dr.) v. Parminder Singh Chandigarh C.D.R.C. 179.

Presumption - Negligence in surgery of fractured leg -Bigger size rod inserted -Complaint allowed by Forum -Hence appeal -Order based more on presumptions and inferences than on substantial evidence -Medical negligence against medical practitioner adversely affects its reputation and carrier -Matters not to be decided only on basis of presumption -strongness of presumption not take away right of effected party to lead evidence to rebut the same - Order set aside -Matter remanded back.

Gall Bladder:
Dhanwati Kumar (Smt.) v. Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. 162.

Organ removed without consent -No stone found in removed gall bladder -Allegation not acceptable - Consent form duly filled by complainant's husband -Clear, express and voluntary consent given -Sufficient explanation given for surgeon's shifting to traditional method of open surgery -Surgeon took all possible care and caution to prevent slipping of stone from gall bladder to bile duct -Possibility of stones having originated in bile duct cannot be ruled out -No deficiency in service on part of surgeon proved -Complaint dismissed.

Sudden cardiac arrest:
Gurudas S. Morajkar v. Or. (Mrs.) Seema Kharangate Goa S.C.D;R.C. 1.

Organ removed-Sudden cardiac arrest. Patient revived after external cardiac massage but found unconscious -Shifted to GMC Hospital for better treatment -Expired -No negligence or lack of nursing care alleged -No deficiency in service proved -Complaint dismissed.

Ophthalmology:
Marble City Hospital & Research Centre v. VR. Soni Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C.

Wrong treatment Cataract operation performed, IOL implanted -Vision not improved - Patient referred to higher centre -Corneal grafting done -Vision regained -Complaint allowed by Forum. -Hence appeal- Chances of complications due to cornea opacity, explained to complainant-Corneal grafting done because no improvement shown by conservative line of treatment -Absence of expert opinion in support of alleged negligence -Patient has to establish his case against medical man -Negligence has to be proved cannot be presumed -Negligence not proved -Order set aside.

Opthalmology:
Akhil Kumar Jain (Dr.) v. Lallan Prasad Bihar S.C.D.R.C. 504.

Eye sight not restored after operation -Complaint allowed -Hence appeal- Operation done carelessly, negligently, not proved -All care and caution taken by O.P. -Doctor can be found guilty only when fallen short of standard of reasonable medical care -Absence of expert evidence --O.P. not negligent if eye sight not restored, deteriorated after operation -Complaint wrongly allowed -Order set aside in appeal.

Wrong blood report:
Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory v. Bhagwan Singh Uttaranchal S.C.D.R.C. 587.

Wrong blood report -Donated blood found unfit for donation as suffering from Australia-antigen disease - Re-examination done -Disease found negative -Doctor instead of saying sorry, defending case by making false allegation -Deficiency in service proved -Complainant suffered 24 hours due to false report, adequate ground to award compensation.

Failure of sterilization:
Padma N. Rao v. Ashabai Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 36.

Failure of sterilization operation- Negligence on part of doctors conducting operation, alleged -Negligence cannot be presumed -Pregnancy after sterilization not always sufficient to jump the conclusion of negligence -Negligence must be manifest and apparent -Claim not bona fide -Forum erred in allowing claim -Order set aside in appeal.

Orthopedics:
Shankar Bhandari v. Md. Suleman Ansari Jharkhand S.C.D.R.C. 38.

Wrong plastering - Complainant's son fell down from tree -Sustained fracture injury in hand -Fractured hand plastered without x-ray report- Swelling started, hand damaged -Victim became permanently handicapped -Wrong plastering and negligent treatment proved -Forum erred in dismissing complaint -Order set aside in appeal- O.P. liable to pay compensation -Medical expenses and litigation cost awarded.

Antimalarial drugs causing loss of sight:
Ajay Kumar v. Dr. Devendra Nath Bihar S.C.D.R.C. 48.

Wrong treatment -Anti-malarial drug prescribed in mild dose -Alleged, eye sight damaged -Absence of expert evidence to show that use of prescribed medicine damaged eye sight -Qualified doctor if treated patient and something went wrong, doctor not liable for negligence or deficiency in service -Complaint rightly dismissed.

Wrong treatment due to wrong pathology report:
Rakesh Ranjan Sinha v. Dr. S.K. Das Bihar S.C.D.R.C. 497.

Wrong treatment due to wrong pathology report alleged -Absence of evidence in support of allegation -Overwriting in pathological report creates doubt as it does not bear signatures of doctor-No reliance can be placed on report -Complainant failed to make out any case of negligence against O.Ps. Complaint dismissed.

Orthopaedics:
Queen, Nri Hospital v. B. Rama Krishna Rao -Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 521.

Complainant met with accident, sustained fractures -Bandage applied by O.P. Complainant went to other doctor due to unbearable pain -Fragments widely separated, their union not possible without Internal fixation -Surgery conducted -Bones set properly, pain subsided, bones united -Negligence on part of O.Ps. proved -Complaint rightly allowed.

Doctor's testimony cannot be rejected:
P.K. Thirumanickam v. Dr. Abdulkareem Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 72.

Doctor's testimony cannot be rejected as interested one, merely because he is doctor and member of same profession: Complaint dismissed in absence of satisfactory proof. Injection administered without making any test -Patient died -Absence of expert evidence in support of allegation -Doctor's testimony cannot be rejected as interested one, merely because he is doctor and member of same profession -Death cannot be linked to any act of omission or commission of O.P. -Complaint dismissed in absence of satisfactory proof.

Anti-malarial drugs:
Vadlamudi Nagesrvara Rao v. Dr. Koneru Gangadhara Rao Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 639.

Patient came with high fever, chill and rigour -Malaria or typhoid tests showed negative –Antimalarial treatment continued as doctor clinically felt symptoms of Malaria -Patient died due to kidney failure -Administration of Malaria has no effect on kidneys as per nephrologist opinion -Deficiency in service/negligence in treatment not proved - Complaint rightly dis

BLOOD CANCER: DOCTOR'S ADVICE REGARDING BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION, NOT FOLLOWED:
Pasumarthy Narayana v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. National C.D.R.C. IV (2004) CPJ:19.

Blood cancer -Non-disclosure of treatment details necessary for complete recovery -Patient suffering from advanced stage of blood cancer -After two phases of chemotherapy given, remission in cancer revealed by pathological test- Patient advised to come within 15 days for Bone Marrow Transplantation -Patient's father neglected the matter, brought patient after 6 months, after serious relapse of cancer -; Total negligence on part of father -Patient died in spite of best treatment given -No deficiency in service proved -Complaint dismissed.

SUBSEQUENT TO NORMAL DELIVERY, AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL, NOT SUFFICIENT TO FASTEN LIABILITY:
Medical Superintendent Incharge, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education v. Kanwalinder Singh Chandigarh C.D.R.C. IV (2004) CPJ:186.

Burden of proof on party alleging negligence -Onus may shift to other party only when reliable and credible evidence led, though burden of proof still remains on that party to show evidence to be credible -O.P. undertook treatment as per accepted norm of practice -Mere fact that different procedure, subsequent to delivery of child undertaken at another hospital, not sufficient to fasten liability on O.P.-No negligence or deficiency in service proved -Complaint wrongly allowed -Order set aside -Complaint dismissed with cost.

ORGAN LOSS: EYE STATUS NOT ASCERTAINED, PRIOR TO SURGERY: NEGLIGENCE PROVED:
V Pahlva (Dr.) v. Surindra Mollan Chose National C.D.R.C. IV (2004) CPJ 1.

Organ loss - Cataract operation -Ratina detachment found during surgery -Intra ocular lens not implanted -Condition deteriorated -No improvement even after second surgery, eye lost -Status of eye not ascertained by B-scan, prior to surgery -Negligence of doctor resulted loss of important organ -Doctor liable to pay compensation.

Selling wrong medicine: Deficiency in service: Compensation for mental agony enhanced:
Madhu Goyal v. Vimal Medical Hall Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. IV (2004) CPJ 288.

Selling of wrong medicine -Complainant felt uneasiness and swelling after consuming it -Contention, wrong medicine delivered due to mistake, not acceptable '- Goods sold by O.P. related to health condition of patient -O.P. should have exhibited higher degree of care and caution in selling medicine -Deficiency in service proved -Compensation for mental agony enhanced in appeal.

Absence of expert evidence:
K.K. Dhruv (Dr.) v. Jyoti Verma (Dr.) Chhattisgarh S.C.D.R.C. 577.

Opportunity granted in appeal. -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Death due to negligence alleged -Expert opinion not produced in support of allegation -Complaint dismissed -Hence appeal- Opportunity to produce expert evidence and affidavit in support of averments, granted -Appeal allowed -Matter remanded back.

Disability provides for day-to-day cause of action:
Krislmaveni v. Dr. Radhakrishnan Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 525

-Appellant suffered continuing disability, which provide day-to-day cause of action: Complaint within limitation. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 24-A -Limitation -Time-barred -Medical negligence -Appellant suffered continuing disability, which would provide day-to-day cause of action -Complaint within limitation, from date of discharge -Order dismissing complaint set aside in appeal.

No nexus between death of child and treatment afforded:
Afroza v. Saleema Bano Jammu & Kashmir S.C.D.R.C. 765.

Baby died in mother's womb: No nexus between death of child and treatment afforded by O.P. proved: Complaint dismissed. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 15- Medical Negligence-Baby died in mother's womb -Compensation claimed -No nexus between death of child and treatment afforded by O.P. -Patient alright and baby alive till last visit -Baby alive at time patient admitted in hospital, after 47 days of treatment given by O.P. -No negligence proved -Complaint rightly dismissed by Forum.

Bloodcancer:
Pasumarthy Narayana v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. National C.D.R.C. 19.

Doctor's advice regarding Bone Marrow Transplan-tation, not followed: Effect. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Sections 2(1)(g) and 21 -Medical Negligence -Blood cancer -Non-disclosure of treatment details necessary for complete recovery -Patient suffering from advanced stage of blood cancer -After two phases of chemotherapy given, remission in cancer revealed by pathological test- Patient advised to come within 15 days for Bone Marrow Transplantation -Patient's father neglected the matter, brought patient after 6 months, after serious relapse of cancer -Total negligence on part of father -Patient died in spite of best treatment given -No deficiency in service proved -Complaint dismissed.


Burden of proof on party alleging negligence:
Different procedure, subsequent to delivery, at another hospital, not sufficient to fasten liability. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Burden of proof on party alleging negligence -Onus may shift to other party only when reliable and credible evidence led, though burden of proof still remains on that party to show evidence to be credible -O.P. undertook treatment as per accepted norm of practice -Mere fact that different procedure, subsequent to delivery of child undertaken at another hospital, not sufficient to fasten liability on O.P. -No negligence or deficiency in service proved -Complaint wrongly allowed -Order set aside -Complaint dismissed with cost.


Cystic solid mass develops every month in ovary and finishes: No negligence found : Complaint dismissed.
Medical Superintendent Inc11arge, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education v. Kamvalinder Singh CJzandigarh C.D.R.C. 186.

Diagnostic centre: Wrong ultrasound report: Cyst found in another ultrasound, operated. Consumer Protection Act, 15J86 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Services -Diagnostic centre - Wrong ultrasound report -Complainant not getting relief from medicines -Another ultrasound conducted, cyst found in abdomen, operated -Complaint dismissed by Forum -Hence appeal -Cystic solid mass develops every month in ovary and then finishes - Concerned Surgeon operated for financial gain -Cyst of 05 m.m. size develops very quickly and fastly, can develope within a week -Forum justified in dismissing complaint -Appeal dismissed.

Medical Negligence -Allopathic drugs prescribed by Ayurvedic doctor -B.A.M.S.. Degree:
He1luata v. Vipin Premi (Dr.) Uttaranchal S.C.D.R.C. 694.

Eligibility to practise Allopathic medicine B.A.M.S. degree holder allowed holder eligible to practise and prescribe Allopathic medicine as per circular/notifications issued by State Government -O.P. not deficient in service in prescribing Allopathic medicine. Ankush Vithoba Dhokale v. Dr. Anant Dinkar Bhosale Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 316 -Eye wrongly operated: Disease bilateral, decision to operate left eye first and then control infection in right, correct: Commission not expert to contradict doctor's statement : Negligence not proved.
<need clarification for the part that is below this keeping as is.>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 15- Medical Negligence -Eye wrongly operated:
Saini v. A..S. Malhotra (Dr.) Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. 597.

Improper treatment and surgery: Altegations not proved : No relief granted. Problem of watering and pain subsisted -Contention, doctqr vicariously liable for J negligent act of subordinates -Contention not acceptable in contracts of personal services . Operation performed on eyes by two different bodies of doctors, no negligence found -, Disease bilaieral, decision to operate Ieft eye first and then control injection in..;fight, correct J': -CommIssIon cannot constitute itself into an expert body and contradict statement aj;doctors 'i constituting committee and board -Medical negligence not proved -Complaint rightly :~ dismissed.

Consumer Protection Act, .1986 -Section2(1)(g)
SL'IVmllmli v. K..P. Sin,r;;h (Or.) Pondicherry S.C.O.R.C. 660 j.

-Medical Negligence -Improper treatment and surgery -Lapar(jsc~s,urgery conducted for removal of gall stones- Complainant still having pain in abdomen, subjected to Sonar scan -Thickening of residual wall markedly 1 and calculi (calufication) adherent to wall reen found -Open surgery conducted, stones 1 removel-J from gall bladder -Alleged, complainant had to spend Rs. 55;000/- for second ! surgery due to improper treatment -Second surgery necessitated due to negligence of 1st i respondent not proved -Gall bladder deeply adherent to liver bed, dissection would be J very l-Jifficult, therefore, laparoscopic surgery adopted -No negligence/ deficiency in service on ,part of ls:t respondent-"- Improper treatment not proved -No relief. Incor.rect procedure, inappropriate treatment: Absence of sufficient material in support; nominal compensation with Interest awarded.

Consumer Protec;tion Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g)
9'. BL'L'111L'slvara Rao v. Secretary, Hyderabad Race Club Andhra Pradesh S.C..O.R.C. 373 -Injection administered on wrong part, contrary to instructions: Permanent disability.

-Medical Negligence -Incorrect procedure, ! inappropriate treatment given -Nail prick in toe of leg -Injection administered - Severe pain and swelling at site of injection -Deceased admitted in O.P.'s nursing home- Swelling followed by rupture of 3 days old injection abscess -Deceased shifted to speciality I,ospital, died same day- Doctor who treated patient and procedure adopted, not. disclosed ~ Deficiency in service -Sufficient material in support of inappropriate treatment not prod uced on record -Case not Supported by widow a..nd other relatives, nominal compensation awarded -Interest. @ 12% p.a. payable.



Exceeding 400,{" suffered: Deficiency in service :Compensation. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Injection administered on wrong part, contrary to specific prescriptioninstructions -Travelling beyond safe area of administering injection constitute negligence -Complainant suffered permanent l-Jisability exceeding 40°;;" unfit to drive Auto, the only source of livelihood -Deficiency in service on part of O.P. proved -O.P. liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- - Compensation for mental agony and cost awarded.

Maternity case:
A,ikllSlt Vitltoba Ohokale v. Or. Anant Oinkar Bhosale Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 316.

Absence of proper and efficient arrangement alleged: Medical check up prior to birth of child not make hospital or doctor liable for untoward happening at delivery time, Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g) and 12- Medical negligence -Maternity case -Absence of proper and efficient arrangement alleged -Doctor out of station, not available at time of admission of expectant mother and delivery of child -Nurse on duty declined to admit complainant but she had to give way due to insistence and adamancy of complainant and relatives -Merely because complainant got medically checked prior to birth of child would not make hospital or concerned doctor liable for untoward happening at time of delivery -Deficiency in service not proved -Complaint dismissed.

Medical complications direct result of negligence of doctor during removal of I U.C.D. proved :
Garima Gupta v. Singhal Hospital and Family Welfare Centre Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. 635

Failure to render proper care: Principle of res ipsa loquitur applied: Relief granted. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) -Medical Negligence - Negligence durinf?; removal of I.U.C.D., causing internal injury -Suffering that complainant underwent subsequent to removal of I.U.C.D., quite prolonged, reached the realm of brain in form of paranoid reactions and extra pyramidal symptoms -Medical complications direct result of negligence of doctor during removal of I.U.C.D. proved -Failure to render proper care thereafter -Principle of res ipsa loquitur applied -Negligence/ deficiency in service proved -Compensation with interest awarded -Complainant's husband in Government service, travelling expenses must have been reimbursed, not allowed.

Necessary party:
].S. Paul v. A. Barkataki (Dr.) Meghalaya S.C.D.R.C. 743 - Non-impleadment of treating doctor, could not result in dismissal of original petition: Hospital responsible for acts of their staff, can discharge burden by producing treating doctor in defence.

Medical Negligence: Non-impleadment of treating doctor as necessary party could not result in dismissal of original petition: Duties and functions of National Commission -Law regarding non-joinder of necessary party under CPC, Order 1 Rule 10 there also even no suit sha II fail because of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties -Consumer Forum primarily meant to provide better protection in interest of consumers and not to short-circuit matter or defeat claim on technical grounds -Heavy burden cannot be placed on patient or family members/ relatives to implead all those doctors who treated patient or nursing staff to be impleaded as l-'arty- Burden lies on hospital and concerned doctor who treated patient that there was no negligence involved in treatment -In both contingencies i.e. "contract of service" and "contract for service" Courts have taken view that hospital is responsible for acts of their permanent staff as well as staff whose services temporarily requisitioned for treatment of patients -But at same time hospital can discharge burden by producing treating doctor in defence that all due care and caution taken and despite that patient died -Order passed by National Commission set aside -Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 22, 13(4), 13(5), 13(6) -Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order 1 Rule 8- Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - Rule 14(1)(b).

Savita Gar,\, (Smt.) v. TllC Director, National Heart Institute (Supreme Court of India) ($C) 40 -Negligence in surgery : Absence of expert opinion: No physical ~xamination by e~x1?ett:

Directions given.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Negligence in surgery -Alleged, Vitrous Huma punctured at time of conducting operation, lens not fitted at proper place -Allegation not supported by expert opinion -Dismissed by Forum - Hence appeal ~ complainant physically not examined by expert -Opinion based on papers prepared by O.P. -Order set aside with direction to Forum to get complainant's eye physic~lly examined from A.I.I.M.S. -

SlIrtlj Blull1 v. Dr. Krisl/an Lal 'i;~ ~ Dellu S.C.p.R.C. 335 i[¥; ~:- .c



.,.~ ~ :7 Negligence in treatment not proved : No deficiency in service.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Negligence in treatment of minor alleged -Burden to prove negligence not discharged by complainant - Deficiency in service not proved -Complaint rightly dismissed.

Sanket Raju Shinde v. S.7: Watve (Dr. ) Maharashtra -Organ I~ : Eye status not asCertained, prior to surgery : Negligence proved : CoDIpelsation. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1 )(g) -Medical Negligence -Organ loss -

Cataract operation -Ratina detachment found during surgery -Intra ocular lens not implanted -Condition deteriorated -No improvement even after second surgery, eye lost -Status of eye not ascertained by B-scan, prior to surgery -Negligence of doctor resulted loss of important organ -Doctor liable to pay compensation.

v: Pal,UNI (Dr.) v. Surindra Mohan Glwse National C.D.R.C. -Patient already incubating ~~tis at time when D and C performed : Negligence not

proved : No relief. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Medical

termination of pregnancy done negligently -Patient died -Alleged, P. V; procedure and D and C done by local doctors incomplete -Evidence of two medical experts produced medical termination of pregnancy not cause of meningitis tl1at ultimately resulted in death -Patient already incubating meningitis at time when D and C peofum...t -Negligence or lack of due care not proved -No relief.

SaJrNIdor Francis Borg~ v. Dr. Arun B'. Gc¥I S.CD.R.C. 7 -Tubectomy operation : Failure of: Proof of actual negligence in such like simple surgeries

not required : Compensation with interest granted.

Civil Procedure Code 1~ -Section 100 -Medical Negligence -Tubectomy operation - Failure of -Negligence on part of doctor resulted into birth of unwanted d1ild -Proof of actual negligence in such like relatively simple ' not required -Doctor performed duty with reasonable care and skill, not proved -Compensation with interest granted.

Fulla fkvi @ Fullo Devi v. Stale of Horyana Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 59 -Wrong diagnosis and treatment not proved : Complaint wrongly allowed : Order set aside. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medical Negligence -Wrong diagnosis

And treatment -Complainant's wife suff.n.og from fever, brought to O.P.'s nursing home, died despite treatment given -Complaint allowed by Forum -Hence appeaI- Death not occurred instantaneously -Patient died after 10 days of administration of Nivaquine injection -Nivaquine recommended as precautionary treatment for controlling Malaria -O.P. diagi1osed and treated patient as expected from doctor of norn1al prudence -Contention, medicine for controlling sugar not prescn'bed, not corroborated from treatment papers -No negligence in diagnosis or treatment proved -Order set aside.

New India Ass"rance Co. Lid. v. Jai Kumar Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 719

MEDICINE : Excess price charged against printed price: Restrictive Trade Practice : Compensation and cost awarded.

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(nnn) -Restrictive Trade Practice -Medicine

-Excess price charged agairu;t printed maximum retail price -Unjustfied cost imposed on consumers -Restrictive trade practice proved -Compensation and cost awarded.

Kamla Devi v. UpllQr Medical Banipark faipur Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. 445 Selling wrong medicine: Deficiency in service : Compensation for mental agony enhanced. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(1)(g) -Medicine -Selling of wrong medicine

-Complainant felt uneasiness and swelling after consuming it -Contention, wrong ~ medicine delivered due to mistake, not acceptable -Goods sold by O.P. related to health i condition of patient -O.P. should have exhIDited higher degree of care and caution in selling

medicine -Deficiency in service proved -Compensation for mental agony enhanced in appeal.

Madhu Goyal v. Vimal Medical HJIU Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. 288