Back
S. M. KANTIKAR, BINOY KUMAR
Piyush N. Shastri (M. D. ) – Appellant
Versus
Chimanbhai Karsanbhai Parmar – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Appeal is a challenge to an impugned order dated 30.08.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), whereby the Consumer Complaint No. 102/2000 was allowed and the Appellant/Opposite Party was ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakh with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realisation.
2. Brief facts are that Smt. Pushpaben, the wife of the Complainant, aged 44 (hereinafter referred to be the “Patient”) had symptoms of fever, edema, blood pressure and passing less urine. She was under treatment of Dr. Piyush Shastri, the OP from 26/03/1999 to 06/05/2000. During the said period, more than 25 times, she visited the OP, but there was no improvement in her condition. On 06/05/2000, the Renal Function tests (RFT) showed high values including the uric acid. Thus the kidney problem was diagnosed and she was referred to Kidney Institute, Civil Hospital. But her problem aggravated and within 24 hours, the patient died on 07/05/2000 in the Kidney Institute. As per the Kidney Institute’s medical report, the cause of death of patient was Rheumatoid Arthritis,
Medical Negligence - It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical neglig....
The burden of proof for medical negligence lies with the complainant, who must provide substantial evidence; mere allegations are not sufficient.
(1) Return of Documents - As the patient did not bring any medical record, there was no question for the Opposite Party No. 2 to return any documents.(2) Medical Protocol - while adopting a course of....
Protection of Life – OPs failed to bring on record that inherent infrastructure and expertise to protect the life of deceased who was admitted.
(1) Pancreatitis – Pancreatitis could be detected only much later but OPs cannot be held responsible.(2) Negligence – The patient’s treatment was based on from OP No.3, which further underscores negl....
Negligence - The mere fact that Complainant has again got his second operation done from the same OP does not absolve the OP from his negligence at the time of first operation.
(1) Duty of care – The duty of care implies that the doctor must exercise reasonable skill and care, adhering to the standards expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.(2) Breach –....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
