Back
CHHATTISGARH, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. Sharma, President, D.K. Poddar, Member, Narendra Gupta, Member
Arun Mishra —Complainant
versus
Dr. Shreekant Giri & Anr. —Opp.Parties
Complaint Case No.CC/2016/17
Decided on 2.1.2017
For the Complainant:Shri Rakesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opp.Parties:Shri D. Dutta and Shri G.V.K. Rao, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere unsuccessful treatment does not imply medical negligence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Operation of Appendix—Damage to Intestine—Mere unsuccessful treatment does not imply medical negligence—Skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor—It is incumbent upon complainant to prove that doctor was negligent in line of treatment that resulted in life of patient—In consent letter it is mentioned that risk in anaesthesia and risk of other procedures were explained to complainant and complainant gave his consent to OPs for conducting operation of his daughter—Complainant did not prove that O.P. No.2 has done surgery against medical literature—Complainant has not filed any application for obtaining expert report from Medical Board—Merely on the basis of pleadings of complainant, it cannot be held that OPs have committed medical negligence while treating daughter of complainant—Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from OPs—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26)
(B) Torts—Medical Negligence—Meaning of—Medical negligence means negligence resulting from failure on part of doctor to act in accordance with medical standards in vogue which are being practised by an ordinary and reasonably competent man, practising on same branch of medicine or surgery—Skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor—Very nature of profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient—Medical opinion may differ with regard to course of action adopted by a doctor treating a patient—Concept of medical negligence may be studied with reference to extent of approach of a medical professional towards three under mentioned concepts which generally work as guidelines to determine factum of medical negligence or otherwise in a particular case, (1) Duty of care in accepting patient for treatment; (2) Duty of care in providing appropriate treatment; and (3) Breach of duty or commission of negligence in any of them and damage cause by such breach. (Para 9) Result: Complaint dismissed.
R.S. Sharma, President—The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the complainant towards compensation, compensation for physical and mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant in the business & agriculture activities.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay cost of litigation to the complainant.
(c) To grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that on 06.11.2015, the daughter of the complainant namely Ku. Toshika Mishra, aged 13 years fell ill, therefore, she was taken for treatment to the OPs Hospital. The OPs informed that the condition of her daughter is very serious and there is possibility of her death and they operated her on 06.11.2015. The daughter of the complainant was admitted by the OPs till 10.11.2015 in their Nursing Home, but the health of the daughter of the complainant did not improve and on the contrary her condition, was deteriorated, then the complainant provided the medicines to his daughter, which were prescribed by the OPs, but no improvement was made in her health. The condition of the daughter of the complainant was deteriorated, therefore on 25.11.2015, the complainant brought his daughter to Uday Hospital, Bilaspur where she was immediately admitted. Dr. Anurag Kumar and Dr. Rakesh Sahu informed the complainant that due to wrong operation conducted, the skin of the intestine of Ku. Toshika Mishra, was perforated, for which second operation was required & the same was conducted on 27.11.2015 and the third operation of the remaining intestine was conducted on 18.01.2016. At present the health of the daughter of the complainant is improving. The OPs have conducted the operation of intestine of the daughter of the complainant by misleading him. Due to wrong operation conducted by the OPs, the future of the daughter of the complainant became darked. Due to the act of the OPs, the complainant and his daughter suffered mental agony. Hence, the complainant filed instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint.
3. The OPs have filed their written statement and averred that the complainant brought his daughter namely Ku. Toshika Mishra in the hospital of O.P. No.1 on 06.11.2015. According to the complainant his daughter Ku. Toshika Mishra was suffering from fever and vomiting constantly (15 – 16 times in last 12 hours), having complaint of dehydration and acute pain in the stomach. Ku. Toshika Mishra was examined by the O.P. No.2, who is an expert Pediatric Surgeon. Songraphy of Ku. Toshika Mishra was conducted. On the basis of Songraphy Report, it came to know that there is inflammation in the appendix of Ku. Toshika Mishra. It was informed to the complainant that operation of his daughter, is necessary. After undergoing operation, the daughter of the complainant was taking normal meals and vomiting was also stopped. She was passing urine and stool conveniently and elegantly. Looking to good condition of Ku. Toshika Mishra, she was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter she was again brought to the OPs on 14.11.2015 for follow check-up and she complained mild pain in her stomach. Sonography test was again conducted and on perusal of the Sonography report, it is found that in intestine Inflammed bowel loops post operative infective was present. On the basis of above infection, injection was prescribed to Ku. Toshika Mishra. On the request of the complainant, he was directed by the OPs that injection to Ku. Toshika Mishra should be administered by the local Dr. and the OPs also instructed the complainant to again bring her daughter before them for check up after 5 days. From 14.11.2015 to 25.11.2015 Ku. Toshika Mishra was remained present in her home. On 25.11.2015 the complainant informed the O.P.
