SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President and
Mrs. Pramila S. Kumar, Member
DR. SANJAY SHARMA & ANR.—Appellants
versus
ANASINGH—Respondent
Appeal No. 1465 of 2004—Decided on 1.6.2006

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate.

Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - Medical negligence - Complainants 7 years old son with a complaint of retention of urine was diagnosed to be a case of bladder stone and was operated by appellant doctors on 23-4-2002 - Child developed complications - He was taken to another hospital on 13-5-2002 and patient died on 20-5-2002 - Dist. Forum holding appellant negligent and deficient in service awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of complainant-Appellant - No expert evidence to establish negligence on part of appellants - Operations were associated with non-preventable complications which was not unknown in medical science - Merely because some complications developed which led to death of patient by itself was not sufficient to conclude negligence on part of appellants - Both appellants were experienced and qualified surgeons capable of undertaking treatment in question - Forum below was not right in holding them guilty of medical negligence.(Paras 10 to 12 and 14)

       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o) - Medical treatment given at Govt. hospital where no fee was charged for urine bladder stone operation - Service rendered would be outside the purview of service defined under Consumer Protection Act - Alleged illegal gratification given to doctors could not be termed as consideration.(Paras 8 and 9)

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       Merely because some complications developed after medical operation of patient which led to death of patient by itself was not sufficient to conclude doctors negligence.

ORDER

Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President—This appeal is by opposite parties Dr. Sanjay Sharma and Dr. Pramod Buddhisagar, both working as surgical experts in District Hospital, Dhar and who have been directed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar vide its order dated 16.7.2004 in Case No. 45/2003, to pay to respondent-complainant compensation Rs. 75,000 with interest @ 6% p.a. and cost of Rs. 1,000.

2. The compensation has been awarded on the finding that the appellants were deficient in service while treating late Mukesh, 7 years old son of the respondent. Late Mukesh was admitted on 19.4.2002 in Government District Hospital, Dhar with complaint of retention of urine and was diagnosed to be a case of bladder stone. On 23.4.2002 his suprapubic cystolithotomy was done under general anaesthesia by appellant No. 1 Dr. Sanjay Sharma. On 26.4.2002 Dr. Pramod Buddhisagar attended the patient and it was noted that his cathetar was not in place. On 27.4.2002 he developed fever with pain in abdomen and also vomited three-four times. He was having distension of abdomen and had no motion for last 24 hours. Dr. Buddhisagar on 28.4.2002 suspected peritonitis with obstruction and called for the medical specialist. On 29.4.2002 he was seen by the CMO Dr. Y.K. Sharma as per bed-head ticket his condition was normal on 30.4.2002. He was having no vomiting, his thest was clear and abdomen was also soft. However, on 1.5.2002 his general condition again deteriorated and there was distension and pain in abdomen with vomiting and fever. He was again seen by Dr. Y.K. Sharma on 2.5.2002 and on 3.5.2002 his exploratory lapratomy was performed by Dr. Buddhisagar under general an aesthesia. The surgery note of Dr. Buddhisagar thus read :

“ABD opened by paramidian incision upper intestinal loops distanded about 1 feet from caecum intestine watch adherent to the top of bladder peritoneum 3” portion which was separated from adhension intestional rotation around the loop corrected. Intenstion decompressed abdomen closed in layers.”

3. Post operatively his general condition was found fair and he passed urine twice till 8.00 p.m. He was also given blood transfusion. On 4.5.2002 also his general condition was fair and he passed 200 cc urine. However, he at 10.05 p.m. developed fever and was seen by some medical expert of the hospital. On 5.5.2002 his general condition was fair. He also passed adequate urine (4-5 times). It appears on 6.5.2002 Dr. Sanjay Sharma resumed his duty and attended the patient when his condition as per bed-head ticket was not very fair, he was having 102 degree temperature. His condition deteriorated further on 7.5.2002 when in the morning his mother took the patient out of the hospital to show to some private practitioner, but returned back soon.He was also given blood transfusion. However, his condition did not show sign of improvement. He was attended by Dr. Sanjay Sharma, Dr. Budhisagar and Dr. Modi. On 10.5.2002 he was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore. It appears that on some complaint District Administration also intervened in the matter. Ultimately, he was taken to Indore on 13.5.2002 and admitted in T. Choithram Hospital where he died on 20.5.2002 as a result of multiple organ failure.

4. The case of the respondent-complainant before the District Forum was that appellant No. 1-Dr. Sanjay Sharma had charged Rs. 2,000 while appellant No. 2 Dr. Buddhisagar charged Rs. 1,500 from him for performing the aforesaid operations. He further attributed negligence to both the appellants in treating his son and it was alleged that before performing operations, no requisite tests were conducted and the operations were performed only to mint money from the complainant.

5. The appellants denied all the allegations made against them and it was submitted that the entire treatment was given to the deceased Mukesh free of charge and no fees whatsoever was charged by them outside or inside the hospital. It was further contended that all neces





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top