S. K. GUPTA vs R. R. DOBHAL - 2014 Supreme(UK) 120

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(UK) 120

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Member Mr. C.C. Pant
First Appeal No. 255/2010
DR. S.K. GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
SH. R.R. DOBHAL & ORS. – Respondents
AND First Appeal No. 287/2010
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
SH. R.R. DOBHAL & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 30.05.2014

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.K. Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 2 & 3: Mr. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. J.K. Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence — If on perusal of the documents, it comes that the line of treatment adopted by the doctor was not wrong, nor there was any act of negligence or deficiency in service by the doctor — Nor the affidavit filed by the complainant show that the line of treatment given by the doctor was contrary to the settled norms in the medical profession — Then there was no negligence or deficiency in service by the doctor and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
        (Para 11)
       (B) Medical Professional — A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed — Or he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess — In the instant case, appellant was a qualified doctor and possessed required skill for performing TKR surgery — He had also performed a number of orthopedic surgeries successfully — Thus, he could not be held negligent — Consumer Complaint, liable to be dismissed. (Paras 8, 15)
        ¼v½ fpfdRlh; mis{kk & vxj nLrkostksa ds ifj’khyu ls ;g ekywe gks fd fpfdRld }kjk fd;k x;k mipkj xyr ugha Fkk u gh mis{kkRed Fkk o fpfdRld }kjk lsok esa Hkh dksbZ deh ugha djh xbZ & u gh f’kdk;rdÙkkZ }kjk ntZ affidavit ls ;g izrhr Fkk fd fpfdRld }kjk fd;k x;k mipkj fpfdRlk O;olk; ds LFkkfir fu;eksa ds fo#) Fkk & rc fpfdRld dh lsok esa dksbZ deh ;k mis{kk ugha & f’kdk;r [kkfjt gksus ;ksX;A
        ¼izLrj 11½
       ¼c½ fpfdRlk O;olk; & fdlh Hkh is’ksoj dks mis{kkÑr rc ik;k tkrk gS vxj mlds ikl vko’;d vgZrk,¡ u gksa ftudk og nkok djrk gS ;k fQj dfFkr okn esa mlus vius dkS’ky dk ;qfDr;qDr {kerk dks iz;ksx ugha fd;k Fkk & izLrqr okn esa vihykFkhZ ,d izf’kf{kr fpfdRld Fkk vkSj mlds ikl
TKR surgery djus ds fy, vko’;d dq’kyrk Fkh & mlds }kjk vusdksa gM~~Mh dh ltZjh lQyrkiwoZd lEié djh x;h Fkh & blfy, mldk mis{kkÑr gksuk laHko ugha & miHkksDrk f’kdk;r [kkfjt gksus ;ksX;A ¼izLrj 8] 15½

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):

These two appeals arise out of the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant – Sh. R.R. Dobhal is a retired Central Government Officer and is covered under Central Government Health Scheme or CGHS Rules of the Central Government. The complainant’s wife was suffering from knee pain. She was referred to Orthopedic Surgeon, Doon Hospital for advice and treatment by CGHS, Dehradun. On 08.05.2007 the complainant’s wife consulted the Orthopedic Surgeon of Doon Hospital and on his prescription, she consulted Dr. S.K. Gupta – opposite party No. 3. Dr. S.K. Gupta advised her for knee replacement. As per the complainant, he requested the doctor to refer the case to higher medical center, but the doctor refused the same on the ground that the knee replacement facility is available in Doon Hospital. On 02.06.2007, the complainant’s wife was admitted in Doon Hospital, where she was operated upon by the Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. S.K. Gupta – opposite party No. 3 on 05.06.2007 for “Total Knee Replacement” or TKR (L) and was discharged from the hospital on 19.06.2007. The complainant has alleged that at the time of discharge, the wound was continuously bleeding, but the opposite party No. 3 did not pay any heed to it. The dressing of the wound was done on every Tuesday and Saturday, but the discharge of blood and pus did not stop. When the complainant noticed that there was no sign of healing of the wound, he consulted a private doctor Dr. B.K.S. Sanjay, who told him that the wound had got infected and it would require immediate operation, so that the complainant’s wife’s leg could be saved. Then, Dr. S.K. Gupta was asked by the complainant to refer the case to higher medical centre and on his recommendation, the CGHS, Dehradun referred the complainant’s case to APOLLO Hospital, Noida for further treatment. During the first surgery of the complainant’s wife, the attending surgeon found that the lateral collateral ligament was absent. After second stage surgery, the complainant was told that the chances of fitness after surgery are very far-off. As per the complainant, his wife has become 50% permanently disabled after the treatment and is unable to stand and walk without help. Thus, alleging negligence committed by opposite party No. 3, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, also arraying therein the Director General of Health as opposite party No. 1; Doon Hospital through its Chief Medical Superintendent as opposite party No. 2 and APOLLO Hospital through its In-charge as opposite party No. 4.

3. The opposite party No. 3 filed his written statement, which is at paper Nos. 17 to 22 on the record of First Appeal No. 255 of 2010 and pleaded that the rules laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (Civil Appeal No. 3541 of 2002)” be followed before proceeding against the doctor; that the Director General of Health had set up an enquiry against Dr. S.K. Gupta on receipt of a complaint from the complainant and the Committee so constituted for the enquiry came to the conclusion that no case of medical negligence is made out; that some discharge was seen from the wound after 7 days’ of the operation, but on the insistence of the patient and her relatives, she was discharged from Doon Hospital; that the wound’s discharge was serous and scanty (in drops and of and on), so proper antibiotic medicines were prescribed at the time of discharge; that the dressing was done in the hospital, but at times, they also got it done on their own at the home; that such a discharge occurs in some cases after operation as the patient’s body refuses to accept the foreign element li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(UK) 120

Cases Referred (2)