The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the doctor for medical negligence in administering the injection, leading to the complainant's permanent disability. The judgment also emphasizes the vicarious liability of the hospital for the acts of the treating doctor.

ORDER

Mr. N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial )—Present complaint has been filed by Master Amresh Kumar Thakur on 13.5.2003 when he was a minor and aged 12 years. Complaint was filed through his father/ guardian Sh. Jagdish Thakur. Complaint is directed against Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, physician (in short OP1) working in Vimhans Hospital, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi (in Short OP2 hospital). Facts as disclosed in the complaint are that the complainant who was suffering from vomiting and fever was brought to emergency ward of OP2 hospital on 28.4.2001 at about 10.30 a.m. The doctor on duty named Dr. Bernard administered one spoon of the syrup ‘phenargan’ to the complainant. After sometime, OP1 Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha gave injection ‘phenargan’ IV, 25 mg in the brachial artery. Injection was given intra arterially instead of the same being given intra venously. Soon thereafter the complainant started complaining of acute pain. At about 4 p.m. complainant was discharged from OP2 hospital and taken to home. At about 5.30 p.m. complainant’s father found that the complainant’s right hand had become blue. He rushed the complainant to OP2 hospital where he was made to wait uptil 1.30 pm. After seeing the condition of the patient, OP1 directed the complainant’s father to take the complainant to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) immediately. Complainant was taken to AIIMS at about 12 night. Doctors at AIIMS informed that the damage had been caused to most of the fingers due to wrong administration of injection and the same could not be reversed. It had caused gangrene. Doctors asked the complainant’s father to bring the complainant next morning and show him to a cardiovascular surgeon. Next morning, the cardiovascular examined the complainant and prescribed treatment. Complainant used to be taken to AIIMS regularly for a week. Treatment was not producing any results. On 6.5.2001, complainant was taken to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, where Dr. K.K. Pandey a cardiovascular was consulted. Dr. K.K. Pandey found gangrenous charges in the fingers of right hand and swelling of the forearm. Right radial artery was palpable thrombosis and spas of pulmar arch trances were suspected. Doctor asked the patient to come after one week. Complainant’s father took the complainant on 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 24th and 28th May, 2001. A Doppler test was conducted on 8.5.2001. On 28.5.2001 Dr. Pandey advised the complainant’s father to get gangrenous portion of the fingers amputated. On 2.7.2001 complainant was operated upon. Complainant’s fingers of right hand from 2nd to 5th were amputated. Complainant relied upon the discharge summary of OP2 hospital. A legal notice was sent by complainant on 21.10.2001. Upon this, the OPs offered to the complainant an amount of Rs. 40,000 towards compensation. Considering the amount as too small, the complainant turned down the offer and filed the present complaint. Complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 5 lakh towards mental agony due to negligence of the OPs. He also submitted that as per advice of Dr. K.K. Pandey complainant’s hand required plastic surgery which could cost him Rs. 10 lakh. Treatment outside India was more costly. Even plastic surgery would not ensure a normal functioning of the hand.

2. Contention of the complainant is that he became handicapped due to negligence on the part of the OP. Complainant placed on record a disability certificate issued by Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi showing his disability as 29% in relation to the limb. Complainant submitted that he was unable to perform his daily functions. Basic functions like writing, eating and playing were totally impaired. Complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh for the disability caused to him.

3. Contention of the complainant is that while administering the injection of phenargan, OP1 ought have checked whether the same was being administered in the vein or in the artery. Submission of the complaint is that the OP1 did not check if any swelling