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

2011(3) CPR 286
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and Sikandar Punjabi, Member
Preetam Kumar —Complainant
versus
Dr. B.D. Gupta —Opposite Party
Appeal No. 1803 of 2005
Decided on 20.5.2009

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Karamveer, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
A professional charged with negligence can clear himself if he shows that he acted in accordance with general and approved practice.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1(g), 2(1)(o), 15 and 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Wrong ultra sound report—Complaint dismissed by District Forum—A practitioner can only be held liable in this respect if diagnosis is so palpably wrong as to prove negligence—Burden of proving negligent act or wrong diagnosis shall always remain on complainant and complainant has to produce some evidence to show that report given by doctor concerned was palpably wrong—Something was in gal bladder for which respondent doctor had opined stones which later turned out to be gritty sensation—Report given by respondent could not be said to be a report based on wrong diagnosis—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 28 and 29)

       (ii) Torts—Medical negligence—Duty of a medical practitioner arises from fact that he does something to a human being which is likely to cause physical harm unless it is done with proper care and skill—There is no question of warranty, undertaking or profession of skill—Standard of care and skill to satisfy duty in tort is that on an ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising ordinary degree of professional skill—A professional charged with negligence can clear himself if he shows that he acted in accordance with general and approved practice. (Para 14)

       

ORDER

Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant against majority order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the members of the District Forum, Hanumangarh in complaint No.153/04 by which the complaint of the complainant/ appellant was dismissed while the President of the District Forum had allowed the complaint in the manner that the respondent doctor was found guilty of committing deficiency in service in giving wrong report and for that he was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.7,500 as amount incurred in getting the treatment and further to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent before the District Forum, Hanumangarh on 8.9.2004 inter alia stating that on 4.4.2004 he felt some trouble in stomach and he had consulted Dr. Deepak Saini and from his treatment he got some relief. It was further stated in the complaint that on 8.4.2004 he again consulted Dr. Deepak Saini who advised him for ultrasound for which he went to the respondent on 8.4.2004 and after paying a sum of Rs.250 ultrasound in respect of abdomen was got conducted by the respondent doctor and he gave his report on 8.4.2004 and in respect of gal bladder, following observations were made:

“Impression -Changes in UB is S/O Vesical calculous.”

It was further stated in the complaint that since in that report stones in gal bladder were found, therefore, he again consulted Dr. Deepak Saini who advise him for surgery and since on 19.4.2004 he again felt severe pain and since Dr. Deepak Saini was the Government Doctor in the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, therefore, the deceased was admitted in that hospital on 18.4.2004 and operation was got done on 19.4.2004 and was discharged on 26.4.2004 and since during operation Dr. Saini found no stone in the gal bladder, therefore as per case of the complainant appellant the respondent doctor was guilty of giving the wrong ultrasound report in which he had stated that there were stones in the gal bladder of the complainant and for that medical negligence should be found established against respondent doctor. It was further stated in the complaint that as soon as the complainant/appellant was discharged from the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh on 26.4.2004, he went to Jaipur and when the sonography of the stomach was again got done from Kiran Diagnostic Centre, Jaipur on 27.4.2004 even no stones were found and, therefore, the report given by the respondent doctor on 8.4.2004 was a wrong report and for that deficiency the present complaint was filed by the complainant claiming Rs. 3,00,000.

A reply was filed by the respondent doctor on 4.1.2005 and in the reply it was stated that he had done the ultrasound of the stomach of the complainant as the case was referred by Dr. Deepak Saini. It was further stated in the reply that he had given the correct report on the basis of the film and the photographs of the film has been produced. It was further stated in the reply that there were some impressions of white colour in the film and taken into consideration that they might be due to some sludge muddy material, therefore, report which was given by the respondent was correct report and if during operation no stones were found by Dr. Deepak Saini, it did not mean that the report dated 8.4.2004 was wrong one as from the operation notes it is very much clear that some gritty sensation were there, therefore, from that point of view it could not be said that the report was wrong one. It was further stated in the reply that since thereafter the complainant was got admitted in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 27.4.2004 and had remained in the hospital upto 1.5.2004 and operation of Cystoscopy was done on 29.4.2004 and since from the record of the SMS Hospital, Jaipur it was also clear that some material like Amorphous was found, that was i













































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