Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh,
President & Dr. Jatin P. Vaidya, Member
SHEWAKRAM IDANDAS KISHNANI—Complainant
versus
DR. PARESH SHAH—Opponent
Complaint No. 334 of 1998—Decided on 25.10.2005
Deficiency in Service - Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(o)(ii), Section 2(1)(o)(iii), Section 2(1)(o)(iv), Section 2(1)(o)(v), Section 2(1)(o)(vi), Section 2(1)(o)(vii), Section 2(1)(o)(viii), Section 2(1)(o)(ix), Section 2(1)(o)(x), Section 2(1)(o)(xi), Section 2(1)(o)(xii), Section 2(1)(o)(xiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xv), Section 2(1)(o)(xvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xix), Section 2(1)(o)(xx), Section 2(1)(o)(xxi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xxx), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xl), Section 2(1)(o)(xli), Section 2(1)(o)(xlii), Section 2(1)(o)(xliii), Section 2(1)(o)(xliv), Section 2(1)(o)(xlv), Section 2(1)(o)(xlvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xlvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xlviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xlix), Section 2(1)(o)(l), Section 2(1)(o)(li), Section 2(1)(o)(lii), Section 2(1)(o)(liii), Section 2(1)(o)(liv), Section 2(1)(o)(lv), Section 2(1)(o)(lvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lix), Section 2(1)(o)(lx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxix), Section 2(1)(o)(lxx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xc), Section 2(1)(o)(xci), Section 2(1)(o)(xcii), Section 2(1)(o)(xciii), Section 2(1)(o)(xciv), Section 2(1)(o)(xcv), Section 2(1)(o)(xcvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xcvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xcviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xcix), Section 2(1)(o)(c), Section 2(1)(o)(ci), Section 2(1)(o)(cii), Section 2(1)(o)(ciii), Section 2(1)(o)(civ), Section 2(1)(o)(cv), Section 2(1)(o)(cvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cix), Section 2(1)(o)(cx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxl), Section 2(1)(o)(cxli), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxliii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxliv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxliv), Section 2(1)(o)(cl), Section 2(1)(o)(cli), Section 2(1)(o)(clii), Section 2(1)(o)(cliii), Section 2(1)(o)(cliv), Section 2(1)(o)(clv), Section 2(1)(o)(clvi), Section 2(1)(o)(clvii), Section 2(1)(o)(clviii), Section 2(1)(o)(clix), Section 2(1)(o)(clx), Section 2(1)(o)(clxi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxix), Section 2(1)(o)(clxx), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxx), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(clxxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxc), Section 2(1)(o)(cxci), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxciii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxciv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxcix), Section 2(1)(o)(cc), Section 2(1)(o)(cci), Section 2(1)(o)(ccii), Section 2(1)(o)(cciii), Section 2(1)(o)(cciv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccvi), Section 2(1)(o)(ccvii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccviii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccix), Section 2(1)(o)(ccx), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxi), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxix), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxx), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(ccc), Section 2(1)(o)(ccci), Section 2(1)(o)(cccii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccciii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccciv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccx), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccc), Section 2(1)(o)(ccci), Section 2(1)(o)(cccii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccciii), Section 2(1)(o)(ccciv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccx), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cccxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cccc)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought compensation for the death of his wife due to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service by the opponent doctor. The complainant's wife was admitted to a hospital after suffering a heart attack, and despite the opponent doctor's treatment, she passed away.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to provide expert evidence to support the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The court concluded that the complaint was false, frivolous, and vexatious, displaying a clear abuse of process of law under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service by the opponent doctor, as well as the complainant's attempt to extract money through the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of expert evidence and the admissions made by the complainant to dismiss the complaint, emphasizing the absence of support for the complainant's case and the abuse of the legal process.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was ordered to pay costs to the opponent doctor within eight weeks.
Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—By way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,33,128 on account of death of Binduben, aged about 49 years and complainant’s wife on the ground that the opponent displayed deficiency in service and also was guilty of unfair trade practice. The complainant has also prayed for expenses in the sum of Rs. 25,000 and cost of the complaint in the sum of Rs. 10,000. Brief allegations of facts as contained in the complaint are as under :
The complainant happened to be Deputy Manager in the Ahmedabad Eelctricity Company Limited. His wife Bindu, since deceased, aged about 49 years was serving as Sr. Typist in the Gujarat Electrictity Board and drawing salary in the sum of Rs. 8,331 per month. She had heart trouble for the first time on or around 10.8.1996 and opponent was required to attend to her. On that occasion she was given treatment for nine days. She was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital, Nava Vadej, Ahmedabad where she was under continuous care of the opponent doctor. According to the complainant, the opponent doctor was running a consultation clinic for heart diseases, yet, the complainant’s wife was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital. On inquiry from the opponent, the opponent admitted that he was not having facilities of ICU and other required equipments in his hospital. Accordingly, complainant’s wife was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital from where she was discharged on 18.8.1996 with advice to take rest for a month. She was under continuous treatment and regular check up of the opponent who gave certificate on 14.9.1996 to the effect that she was then fit for job and could join duty from 16.9.1996. Once again, on 19.9.1996 she sustained chest pain at around 6.45 a.m. The complainant contacted the opponent at around 7.15 a.m. at his residence on telephone. The opponent reached the complainant’s residence and examined the patient. He had also taken ECG. The opponent advised the complainant to get his wife admitted to hospital. It has been alleged that no emergency medicines were given by the opponent though he was present for about 45 minutes at the residence of the complainant. Under the circumstances, the complainant wanted to admit his wife to the opponent’s hospital but as the opponent had shown his helplessness of having no proper equipments and facility in his hospital, efforts were made to contact Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital authorities for treatment of complainant’s wife. At that time no bed was available in that hospital. The opponent contacted the authorities of Rajasthan Hospital and he accordingly informed the complainant that his wife might be admitted to that hospital and informed that his wife was required to be admitted only for 24 hours for routine check-up and there is nothing serious about her condition and she would come back on the next date. The complainant was reluctant to go to Rajasthan Hospital as he felt that his wife’s condition was critical and she would not be able to stand. According to him she was not conscious. From the expressions she gave out, complainant felt that she was under lot of pain. She was not able to walk the distance up to the ambulance. The complainant, therefore, requested the opponent for allowing her to take rest for minimum four hours at his residence and thereafter she might be admitted to Rajasthan hospital. The opponent informed that if delay was caused and patient was not shifted to Rajasthan Hospital, she would be in difficulty. The complainant, therefore, agreed with the advice of the opponent doctor and ambulance was called for from the employer of the complainant. The opponent asked the patient to get ready. She had walked down the distance from her room to the ambulance with the opponent doctor. The distance was around 60 feet. She climbed up two steps of the ambulance which were on higher side. The complainant observed his wife to be in lot of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
