MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member and S.P. Lale, Member
KALYANI RAUT - Appellant
Versus
DR. MANISH RAMESH MOTWANI AND ORS. - Respondents
Consumer Complaint No. 92 of 2004
Decided on : 04-11-2009
Medical Negligence - Consumer Complaint - [MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE] - [Consumer Protection Act] - [Section 2(1)(d), Section 6] - The court found the doctors guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of the patient, leading to his death. The complainant, the deceased's widow, was awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 jointly and severally by the doctors, along with an additional Rs. 30,000 towards the cost of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was filed by Mrs. Kalyani Raut, alleging medical negligence on the part of the doctors who treated her husband, Mr. Bharat Raut. The patient died during surgery at Millennium Hospital, and the doctors failed to disclose the death to the complainant, instead shifting the patient to Chetana Hospital while keeping the complainant under the belief that her husband was still alive. The post-mortem report mentioned the cause of death as complications following intra-operative procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the doctors guilty of medical negligence, as established by expert opinions and reports. The court exonerated one of the doctors from the charge of medical negligence due to lack of appropriate proof. The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 jointly and severally by the doctors, along with an additional Rs. 30,000 towards the cost of the complaint.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the complexity of the case, the complainant's status as a consumer, and the alleged falsehood in the complaint. The main issue was whether there was medical negligence on the part of the doctors in treating the deceased patient, which the court found to be established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on expert opinions and reports to establish the medical negligence of the doctors, leading to the patient's death. The court also considered the complainant's loss and awarded compensation accordingly.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the doctors to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the complainant, along with an additional Rs. 30,000 towards the cost of the complaint. The court also ordered suitable action to be taken against the hospitals and doctors involved.
ORDER
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member - This complaint has been filed by Complainant-Mrs. Kalyani Raut, alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties who are Doctors by profession.
2. Stated briefly, the case of the complainant is as under:
According to Complainant, her husband Bharat Raut was suffering from some illness. He had approached opposite party No. 3-Dr. Mahale on 19.4.2003 with complaints of swelling above medial aspect of right elbow joint. Opposite party No. 3-Dr. Mahale advised him to undergo operation in Millennium Hospital opposite party No. 3 falsely assured Complainant that Millennium Hospital is well equipped to perform major surgeries and to handle any complications and there are well qualified doctors in Millennium Hospital for performing surgery. As advised, her husband Mr. Raut got admitted in Millennium Hospital on 21.4.2003 at 11.00 p.m. Mr. Raut was taken to the operation theatre at 8.00 a.m. on 22.4.2003. The diagnosis of the patient was not known to any of the Doctors before he was taken for operation. Opposite party No. 2 - Dr. Hitesh Bafana - Anaesthetist, gave axillary block to Mr. Raut, her husband. At 8.30 a.m., opposite party No. 4-Dr. Dheeraj Mahangade with opposite party No. l-Dr. Manish Motwani, started the operation and excised the swelling. According to Complainant, even after surgery any of the opposite parties still did not know the diagnosis of swelling, whether it was signet cell tumor or a shwanoma or myoma or organized hematoma. The opposite parties were inclined in not sending the excised mass of tissue for histopathological examination for confirmation. That due to carelessness and casual approach of all the opposite parties/Doctors, Mr. Raut went into cardiac arrest and expired within half an hour of starting the surgery. The incision was closed and dressed. Thereafter, the sequence of events happened inside the operation theatre, but, most of them were not recorded in the indoor and operative case notes. In sudden death of the patient in operation theatre only negligent attitude and lack of emergency drugs, equipments and lack of experience of opposite parties Doctors was responsible. According to complainant sudden death of the patient in operation theatre is itself sufficient to prove negligence of all the four Doctors and principle of "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) is applicable and opposite parties should be directed to prove their innocence rather than complainant having to prove their guilt. After the death of Mr. Raut in operation theatre, the opposite parties did not disclose this fact to the complainant. They shifted the patient to Chetana Hospital keeping the complainant under the belief that her husband was still alive. In Chetana Critical Care Unit, when her husband was taken, it was clearly declared that patient was dead on admission.
According to complainant, opposite parties had neither expertise nor the hospital well equipped which was owned by Homeopathic Doctor (Opposite Party No. 3 - Dr. Dheeraj Mahanagade). They did not disclose death of Mr. Raut immediately after surgery. The Medico Legal Post-Mortem Report mentions cause of death as Complications following intra operative procedure". According to Complainant, opposite parties Doctors negligently managed her husband Mr. Raut in Millennium Hospital, who are clearly responsible for death of her husband. Because all Doctors were grossly negligent, careless in attitude and utterly careless in giving treatment given to her husband.
Complainant had sent legal notice through Advocate Mr. P.N. Chavan on 18.5.2004 to all the opposite parties, but, none of them bothered to give reply. According to complainant, opposite parties owe dues to the complainant. They committed breach of their professional duties and complainant suffered damage. The proximate cause of damage was the brea
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.