Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
A.J. Shastri, President and Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Member
Dr. Dashrath P. Prajapati – Appellant
versus
Jivabhai Vaghabhai Batta and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal No. 681 of 2018
Decided on 22.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Services – Medical Negligence – Non attribution of – The write up which has been made is simultaneously supported by the application for seeking police protection which has a nexus of coercion and threat upon appellant doctor and therefore further independent supportive material ought to have been taken into consideration and in isolation the defense ought to have been examined and that having not been done the exercise of jurisdiction is irregular not in consonance with sound proposition of law hence,deem it proper not to sustain such conclusion of medical negligence by the present appellant – It is well settled proposition of law as stated above that any admission made under coercion or duress or pressure is not to be admitted and judicial authorities as well as quasi-judicial authorities have to ensure that there can be no extraction of admission or consent under undue influence or pressure the responsibility of examining such circumstance under which the admissions were made rests with the Ld. District Forum as well, and if they suspect coercion they can reopen it quash the settlement or admission and guarantee the equal treatment and that is the law which ought to have been considered – It clearly emerges from the exposition of law that a medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure of through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment. There could be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command. At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field – Merely because they are doctors by profession, what is being expressed by both of them in the affidavits filed before the Commission would not be considered to be an opinion of experts – Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. [Paras 14 to 28]
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.J. Shastri, President—By way of present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, a challenge is made by the appellant original Respondent to a decision dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar in Consumer Complaint No. 214 of 2014.
2. The brief facts leading to the rise of present appeal are as the wife of the original Complainant and mother of two children suffered a paralytic stroke on 13.07.2014 and as such was immediately brought at about 7:40 am in morning for consultation and treatment on 14.07.2014, where she was admitted as an indoor patient and diagnosed as suffered from paralysis stroke. Upon condition being deteriorated the appellant has referred her to a Neuro-physician at Bhavnagar itself for further treatment after giving preliminary supportive treatment, the appellant has referred her to a Dr. Gurumukhani of Bhavnagar a Neuro-physician. Dr. Gurumukhani also treated her for a period of few days but, unfortunately said deceased Devuben Jivabhai succumbed to the said paralytic attack even after two days of intensive care by Dr. Gurumukhani and died on 16.07.2014 at about 10:45 hours. It has been stated that before and while referring deceased Devuben to a hospital of Dr. Gurumukhani certain medicines were called for, for giving preliminary treatment in addition to the other supportive treatment, two injections were called for one named as Monocef-SB and EDAVARON 1.5 MG/ML. The condition was such that under emergency situation the said deceased was required to be referred to Neuro-physician but then ultimately she could not survive and after almost a couple of days period the Complainant with his aid and assistance ransack and attacked the Complainant and compelled him to express regret by writing on letter pad on 25.07.2014 that said two injections were not applied since the said letter pad was compelled to be written by the appellant and hue and cry was made at the hospital and given a threat of dire consequences under that coercive situation the appellant was compelled to put it in writing with the reason on account of such act, even on that very day the appellant was required to apply for immediate police protection from the local police station by giving an application before the concerned police station of that area. Despite the fact that appellant bonafidely gave immediate treatment and having found that situation has worsened immediately referred to a Neuro-physician as mentioned above after giving details and briefing to the said doctor and for a period of 2 days the appellant had no occasion to treat and the deceased died not at his clinic but at a treating doctor’s clinic after two days of rigorous treatment, but, somehow with a view to apply some coercion with a aim known to them the pressure tactics applied with the aid and assistance as indicated above and then by utilizing the same method a complaint came to be filed in the Ld District Forum, Bhavnagar which was then registered as Consumer Complaint No. 214 of 2014 for the reliefs which are set out in the complaint ultimately in substance for seeking compensation of Rs. 15 Lacs for negligence and deficiency of service by the present appellant doctor. The said consumer complaint was served upon appellant the appellant appeared and projected his defense by submitting appropriate evidence but ultimately after adjudication the Ld. District Forum was pleased to pass an order on 25.07.2018 by directing the appellant to pay compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,60,000 with interest @6% with effect from 10.11.2014 within a period of 30 days and it is this judgment and order is made the subject matter of appeal before this Commission.
3. The main matter i.e. present appeal was admitted long back and was awaiting for final hearing right from the year 2018, hence we requested the Ld. Advocates to proceed with the matter promptly, as a result of this the Ld. Advocate Mr. S. P. Hasurkar has repres
(1) Medical practitioner – A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure of through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable c....
Criminal liability under IPC 304-A for medical negligence requires prima facie gross negligence by ordinary competent doctor standard; no prosecution without material proving rash act, as simple erro....
(1) Medical Board Report - Looking to the Medical Board Report, entire record, Bed Head Ticket of the patient, Commission was of the view that, the patient was given proper care, timely and possible ....
Medical professionals must adhere strictly to consent protocols; deviations constitute negligence, justifying FIR registrations.
Medical negligence accusations must be substantiated by clear evidence; mere allegations, without expert consensus on negligence, are insufficient for criminal liability.
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
