Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
TAJ PAL SINGH WADI (DR.) - Appellant
Versus
MEHNGA SIGH AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3693 of 2013 (Against the Order dated 22/07/2013 in Appeal No. 965/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab).
Decided on : 08-01-2015
Pradeep Gupta, Advocate with Mansi Ajmani, Advocate.; Dr. Wadi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Munish Goel, Advocate and Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the standard of care provided by a qualified surgeon in the treatment of burn injuries is crucial in determining negligence and liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Negligence - Medical Malpractice - Treatment of Burn Injuries - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(v), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(v)
Fact of the Case:
The patient suffered burn injuries and was admitted to a hospital. Allegations of negligence were made against the doctor, and the patient was later referred to another hospital for plastic surgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no shortcomings in the treatment of burns given by the qualified surgeon and that it was a standard of practice and reasonable care.
Issues: The issues considered were whether negligence was committed by the doctor and whether the absence of the doctor caused gangrene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the medical records, patient's file, and credentials of the doctor to determine the standard of care provided and concluded that there were no shortcomings in the treatment.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the revision was allowed with no order as to cost.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member. - The brief facts of the case are these. Shri Mehnga Singh suffered burn injuries and was admitted in Dr. Tej Pal Singh Wadi/OP 1/hospital on 5.7.2007. It was alleged that OP-1 carelessly treated him. There was no facility to treat burn and plastic surgery in that hospital. Due to wrong treatment, the complainants condition became critical. Hospital records reveal electric burn but the patient suffered burn from the flames. During the treatment, the OP/doctor had gone to Pune. Hence, no treatment was given to the patient after returning from Pune. OP discharged the patient, without any examination and referred him to D.M.C., Ludhiana, on 16.7.2007, for plastic surgery. The doctors there, told about wrong treatment given by OP and the left hand of complainant was amputated in DMC, Ludhiana. Also the right hand was not cured properly. The complainants spent about Rs. 2,70,000/- towards his treatment in DMC. Hence, alleging negligence on the part of OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 23-07-2008 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal No. 965/2008 having been allowed by the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 22.7.2013 directed OP 1 to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation and also directed OP 2/insurance company to pay insured amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
3. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the petitioner/OP filed this revision petition.
4. We have heard the arguments from the learned counsel for parties. The petitioner/Dr. Tej Pal Singh was also present. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the patient was admitted in OP/hospital on 5.7.2007. Dr. Tej Pal advised the patient to go to higher center but Mrs. Mandeep Kaur and Gurlal Singh, who accompanied the patient insisted for treatment by OP and gave their consent to do the needful. He further stated that the complainant did not disclose truth about the cause of his burn injuries. After coming to the OP hospital, the complainant himself disclosed to the OP that he was in a drunken condition and had fallen into fire. The labourers removed him and took to the local practitioner who did dressing. The police was also not informed about this incident. On coming to OP 1/hospital, the OP observed that both the hands were damaged. Wounds were giving foul smell and some desi medicines were applied on the wounds. For 4-5 days prior to admission to OP hospital, no debridement was done. The extent of dead tissue could not be ascertained as tendons were exposed. The patient was treated with the help of mild anaesthesia from Dr. Sushil. The wounds were cleaned. The dead tissues were cleared under general anaesthsia. The dressing was done regularly on both hands. The patient has not paid huge amount as he alleged. The patient was kept in isolation with air condition. He is a MS general surgeon practicing for last 24 years and has experience of working in the burn wounds in civil hospital, medical college at Bhatinda, Patiala and Faridkot. There was some improvement. The OP discharged the patient on 12.7.2007 with the advise to consult a plastic surgeon; but the patient left the hospital on 14.7.2007 because he was arranging money to go to DMC, Ludhiana. Thus, during the absence of OP, the other two doctors looked after the patient and did the dressing.
5. The learned Counsel for the complainant urged that on 11.7.2007, the plastic surgeon, who visited the OP/hospital gave the fitness clearance for plastic surgery but the OP-1 neglected it and proceeded to Pune on 13.7.2007 and returned on 15.7.2007 and thereafter, OP referred the patient to DMC Ludhiana on 16.7.2007. Therefore, during the absence of OP, the patient was unattended and his treatment was not proper.
