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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
VISHWANATH SHIVLING BIRAJDAR (DR.) - Appellant
Versus
GANGADHAR SANGRAM MITKARI AND OTHERS - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2156 of 2012 from Order dated 29.9.2011 in First Appeal No. 2567/2005 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Aurangabad
Decided on : 07-03-2014

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate and Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 4 legal elements (4 D's) of medical negligence and the absence of medical negligence by the doctors in the surgical treatment of the deceased.

Headnote:

Medical Negligence - Surgical Treatment - Operative Surgery, Surgical Management of Hemorrhoids, Practice of Surgery for the Colon, Rectum, and Anus - [4 D's] - [Duty, Deficiency, Direct Causation, Resulting Damages] - The court discussed the medical negligence in surgical treatment, emphasizing the 4 legal elements (4 D's) that must be proven by the complainant to succeed in a medical negligence case. The court referred to standard medical books and expert opinions to determine the negligence in the treatment of the deceased. It also cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bolam test to establish the absence of medical negligence by the doctors.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased underwent piles surgery and subsequently suffered from complications leading to his demise. The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service against the doctors and the hospital.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no medical negligence in the surgical treatment of the deceased. However, it held the doctor liable for deficiency in service due to the use of an unqualified compounder, and directed the doctor to pay compensation to the complainant.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was negligence in the treatment of the deceased by the doctors and the hospital.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the 4 legal elements (4 D's) of medical negligence and referred to standard medical books, expert opinions, and legal principles to establish the absence of medical negligence by the doctors.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the State Commission and held the doctor liable for deficiency in service, directing the doctor to pay compensation to the complainant.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member -The Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition against the common impugned order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'state Commission') Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 2567/2005, 2613/2005 and 101/2006 wherein the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioner and directed him to pay Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest to the Complainant from 23.7.2004 till its realization.

2. Facts in brief: Ganesh, son of Complainants Sh. Gangadhar Mitkari and Smt. Kamblabai Mitkari who was suffering from piles was operated on 5.6.2003, by the petitioner/OP-1 Dr. Birajdar, at his Sanjivini Hospital, Udgir. It was alleged that OP-1, prescribed Injection Voveron for the pain, which was given by an untrained compounder. Thereafter, at 2.00 p.m. Ganesh complained about non-urination. At 6.00 p.m., as there was no movement of Ganesh, the OP-1 was called, but he did not attend. Again, at 11.00 p.m., Complainant called the OP-1 and his compounder but no avail. On 6.6.2003, early in the morning, at 6.00 a.m., the OP-1 referred the patient to Vivekanand Hospital (OP-2) at Latur. It was alleged that, prior to the operation, the pathological tests were not conducted by OP-1. It was also alleged that immediately after the operation, the patient complained of pain and suffered from convulsion and vomiting and non-urinal, but OP-1 did not examine the patient, did not take proper precautions and that there was a delay in referring the patient to OP-2. The OP-1 instead of referring the case to Nero Surgeon, the operation was carried out by M.S. Surgeon at Vivekanand Hospital (OP-2). The Complainant contended that the deceased was a strong and healthy young boy, who has received a call for recruitment in police force. He was running a grocery shop and Complainants were dependent on him. Therefore, both OP-1, Dr. Birajdar and OP-2 Vivekanand Hospital are liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service.

3. Hence, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum ) and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 with 12% interest, from the date of complaint, and Rs. 50,000 for mental agony.

4. The District Forum directed OP No. 1 and 3 to pay Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 29,457 with 9% p.a. interest from the date of complaint i.e. 23.7.2004, till its realization. District Forum also directed the Opponent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay Rs. 2,000 towards the cost of the complaint. Opponent No. 2 was exonerated by the order.

5. Dissatisfied with order of District Forum, the Complainants filed an appeal (FA/2567/2005) before State Commission for enhancement of compensation, Opponent Nos. 1 and 3 filed the appeals for quashing and setting aside the order of District Forum.

6. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant and the appeal filed by OP-1 was partly allowed and the appeal No 101/2006 filed by Insurance Co. (OP-3) was allowed.

7. We have heard the Counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and denied any negligence in performing piles operation. The OP-1 performed Surgery for piles on 5.6.2003 and kept the patient Ganesh under observation. On the same evening, patient had developed signs of convulsions and vomiting, which was diagnosed as a Cerebro-Vascular Accident (CVA), hence the OP-1 advised to shift the patient to Vivekanand Hospital (OP-2) at Latur, for further management of CVA, but the complainant delayed in shifting to 6.6.2003. At OP-2 hospital, the patient was admitted in ICU and after MRI study, the patient was diagnosed as "Hyper-acute Cerebral Infarction at Left Frontopertaining to Left ICA territory with cerebral edema with occlusion of Left ICA. On emergency basis, doctors at OP-2 conducted operation for Decompression hemi-craniotomy, kept the patient under observation in ICU, who died on 9.6.2003.

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