NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
Harishbhai Shamjibhai & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Dr. D. C. Gohil —Respondent
Revision Petition No.480 of 2010
(From order dated 13.11.2009 in First Appeal No.742 of 2007 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad)
Decided on 10.12.2014
Result: Revision Petition dismissed with costs.
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member—Brief facts relevant to this revision are that, on 28.5.1997,Shamjibhai herein referred as “patient” (since deceased) , took treatment for pain in throat from OP Dr. D. C. Govil, an Ayurveda specialist. The doctor gave him some medicines and injection. On the next day, OP doctor prescribed few medicines and advised him to rub ice on the site of injection. But, no avail, hence, on 30th May, 1997, the patient approached Dr. Dinesh Bhat at Jamnagar, who referred him to a surgeon, Dr. Pankaj Shah, for opinion and further treatment. Dr. Shah opined that the OP/doctor has not taken care while giving injection. Hence, it led to infection, septicemia and gangrene in the hip and whole body. Ultimately, on 10.6.1997, the patient had died.
2. Therefore, the complainant No.1 Ramaben, the wife of deceased, along with her two sons, Harishbhai and Narendrabhai filed a complaint before the District Forum, Rajkot claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with 18% interest from the OP. .
3. The District forum allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to pay Rs.96,000/- with interest @9% p. a. from the date of complaint and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, Gujarat, which was allowed while dismissing the complaint. Hence, against that order, the Petitioner/Complainant filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the Complainant/petitioners vehemently argued that the OP was not qualified to give allopathic treatment. He was B. A. M. S. and L. M. P. Due to wrong injection, the patient developed gangrene leading to his death. Hence, it was negligence. He has cited one authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 332.
6. The rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OP, that the doctor has given treatment for Asthama, breathlessness and fever. He has not given any injection to the hip. He gave injection of ‘Deriphyllin’ and ‘Dexaphone Avil’ on the hand. The patient had pain in the right hip, hence he prescribed Antiflogestine ointment. Hence, there was no negligence. He relied upon the celebrated authority of Hon’ble Supreme reported in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 468. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought our attention towards the certificate of registration under the Gujarat Medical Council, Ahmedabad and the circular issued by Government of Gujarat, dated 22.5.2003. The relevant para of circular is reproduced as below:-
Circular
(2) As per Gujarat Medical Practioner Act, Section 30; Ayurvedic Practitioners can’t be restricted from practicing allopathy and as per clarification of Indian Medicine Central Council Act. Dated 30/10/1996 vide notification No. : 8-5/96 AY (MM) (Copy attached) Ayurveda Graduates can practice allopathy according to Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 Section 17 (3) (B) .
7. We have perused the qualification, registration certificate, and the prescription slips issued by OP, which revealed that OP is an Ayurveda Practitioner, he had prescribed allopathic medicine, administered injection for Asthama. It is quite difficult to fathom whether, it was given IV/IM (Intravenous or intramuscular) , an iota of suspicion which arises is that for pain in right hip region, why did the OP prescribe Antiflogestine ointment, without any clinical examination. But, as per the Surgeon, Dr. Shah’s prescription, the patient suffered Right gluteal abscess, which clearly establishes that the most possible cause that IM injection was given to the right gluteal region. It is the paramount duty of any doctor to take proper care in diagnosis and treatment with proper documentation. The OP has not placed any documents or prescription;. The OP cannot be absolved of his negligence by taking help of the Government circular.
8. By virtue of Section 15(2) (b) of the Indian
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.