Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.D. Kapoor, President and Rumnita Mittal, Member
PRABHA RAWAT - Appellant
Versus
DEEPTI SRIVASTAVA (DR.) AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal No. A-184 of 2003
Decided on : 16-04-2007
Mr. V.P. Kandpal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Bolam Test to determine medical negligence and the distinction between criminal medical negligence and simplicitor medical negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Diagnosis, Treatment and Medical Negligence - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 12(1)]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought compensation and payment of expenses due to medical negligence by the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent's treatment led to misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of tubal pregnancy, causing physical, mental, and financial suffering.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was a limited deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, it did not warrant heavy compensation. The court held that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 would meet the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the respondent's diagnosis and treatment, the application of medical literature, and the determination of medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Bolam Test to ascertain medical negligence and emphasized the need for ordinary skill and prudence in medical practice. It also considered the distinction between criminal medical negligence and simplicitor medical negligence, highlighting the criteria for holding a medical professional liable.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the order for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant.
ORDER
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- Vide impugned order dated 30th January, 2001 the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation and payment of expenses incurred by her due to the medical negligence of the respondent was dismissed.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The allegations of the appellant, in brief, were that she was suffering from severe abdominal pain and irregular menstrual cycle in July, 2000. She went to the respondent's clinic on 13.7.2001 for treatment. She was examined by the respondent superficially and diagnosed to be suffering from PID with cervicitis with urinary tract infection. The respondent's treatment continued from 13.7.2000 to 24.8.2000. During the period, no tests were prescribed. Since the appellant was not having relief, the respondent continued changing medicines on every occasion. On 14.9.2000, the appellant went to Timarpur alongwith her husband to a friend's place where she had severe pain in abdomen and collapsed. She was taken to Dr. Khurana's ultrasound clinic who did ultrasound and found that the appellant was having tubal pregnancy of 8-9 weeks and suggested that she be rushed to a nearby hospital for emergency surgery as fallopian tube may burst any moment with serious risk to appellant's life. She was immediately taken to Tirath Ram Shah Hospital where she was operated upon and saved by timely arrival. The hospital charged Rs. 16,645 for the treatment. Besides an amount of Rs. 10,000 was spent on medicines. The appellant alleged that on account of miscalculation and lack of clinical sense, the appellant and her family members suffered mentally, physically and financially. The appellant further stated that it was respondent's duty to prescribe and advise tests like ultrasound, X-ray abdomen, C.T. Scan and/or MRI for proper diagnosis instead of using hit and trial methods and that had caused grievous hurt to her. Appellant claimed Rs. 1,03,845 towards costs of operation, amount spent on ongoing medical treatment and damages for harassment.
4. As against this the version of the respondent was that the appellant was under treatment upto 24.7.2000 and thereafter never turned up for further examination. The appellant never reported having missed menstrual period during 13.7.2000 to 24.7.2000 and question of asking her for pregnancy test did not arise. The respondent stated that appellant was advised protected intercourse as PID itself pre-disposes to ectopic pregnancy which advice must not have been followed. The appellant had reported LMP on 5.7.2000, on 13.7.2000 and periods were due on or after 5.8.2000 and appellant never came for examination after that and pregnancy test could not be advised. As per prescription slip dated 14.9.2000 of Dr. Poonam Khera, LMP was mentioned as 24.8.2000. which had been over written as 5.7.2000 which showed that the appellant might have had bleeding on 24.8.2000. The allegations contained in the complaint alleging superficial examination, miscalculation and deficiency in service on her part were specifically denied.
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum absolved the respondent from the charge of deficiency in service on the strength of the medical literature culled out from New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th Edition, 1995 vol. 9 page 251 that the incidence of ectopic pregnancy is 7 to 10 times higher in woman with history of PID. The treatment of PID consists of intensive antibiotic therapy along with bed rest, pain healing medications and abstention from sexual intercourse till infection disappears.
6. The plea of the appellant that the respondent should have prescribed investigations such as ultrasound abdomen, X-ray, C.T. Scan and M.R.I. for proper diagnosis to save the appellant from the problems which she had to face and continued hit and trial methods was repelled for want of any medical literature. In support of the plea that in cases of PID which is a common problem with women, the doctor would i
