Medical negligence of a doctor so that my 26 yrs sister life got damaged
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
doctor taken decision for the replacement of knee at the age of 26 yrs to my sisterG. bangaram Police canistable. met with accident and admitted in the seven hills hospital vskp. with head injury,intestines injury and right leg injury.orhopedic doctor suggested to knee replacement and operation failed. Again in hyderabad second doctor conducted resurgery and given discharge summary as a failed operation and failed manipulation, failed total knee replacement and suffered with foot drop ,severe neuralgia. My sister became permanent disable. In 2002 i approached district consumer forum but wrong judgement given and i approached state forum. State forum directed the case again to district forum. Now trial is going on. Expert commission was completed. Doctor cross examination over. In the year 2006 the doctor has submitted some local doctors support copies. any how they are trying to manage again. Supported doctors cross examination is going on. We are very poor and noway to live. kindly Provide any supportive judgments to strenthen the case. Please.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 August 2011
Biggest Compensation Awarded for medical negligence in the
History of India
Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prashanth S. Dhananka
Civil Appeal Nos. 4119 of 1999 and 3126 of 2000, decided on 14 May 2009
Medical negligence compensation:
In a recent case (Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prashanth S. Dhananka -
Civil Appeal Nos. 4119 of 1999 and 3126 of 2000, decided on 14 May 2009), the
Supreme Court while dealing with a medical malpractice case arising out of an operation
for removal of a tumor held that the institute and the doctors concerned were guilty of
negligence and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with interest @ 6 % from 1
March 1999 to the date of payment to the complainant.
As per the judgment, there were serious lapses on the part of the institution and the
attending doctors in inter alia not obtaining written consent of the patient for performing
the surgery, maintenance of the requisite record of the patient and its timely production in
Court, erroneous diagnosis, non involvement of the required specialist surgeon during the
operation, lack of necessary pre-operative investigations and negligence at the time of the
operation. These factors were taken into consideration by the Supreme Court while
adjudicating upon the issues raised.
The complainant in the said matter before the Supreme Court of India was an engineering
student, who underwent an excision biopsy for the removal of a tumor. On completion of
the biopsy it was found that the complainant developed acute paraplegia with a complete
loss of control over his lower limbs.
A complaint was filed before the National Consumer Redressal Commission by the
complainant alleging utter and complete negligence on the part of the doctor and the State
of Andhra Pradesh was alleged to be statutorily liable for the negligence of the concerned
doctors.
The complainant alleged negligence of the concerned doctors in the three stages of the
surgery, that is, pre-operative tests, during the operation and post-operative treatment. It
was held by the Commission that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the
part of the doctor in the different stages of the case. Two appeals were preferred by the
parties before the Supreme Court against the order of the Commission. The complainant
preferred an appeal claiming that the amount of compensation was not enough and an
appeal was preferred by the defendants against the order disowning any liability that has
been accrued to them.
The Supreme Court considered the question of negligence by the doctors in the three
stages of the case, pre-operative tests, the operation and post-operative treatment. The
Court relied on Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (supra) and held that with
regard to the first stage of the treatment, consent given by the complainant for the
biopsy cannot be considered to be an implied consent for a surgery. The Apex Court
relied on the principles of medical negligence as laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of
Punjab (supra) and reiterated in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (supra). The Court
maintained that the service rendered by medical practitioners falls under the definition of
service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as per the judgment
in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (supra).The Court upheld the findings of
the commission with respect to the negligence of the doctors and held that it was on
account of the conduct of the operation that the paraplegia set in. Though the Court held
that the enhanced amount of compensation claimed by the complainant is unjustified,
hypothetical and therefore declined the same, it nevertheless enhanced the compensation
awarded to the complainant by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
girish shringi
(Expert) 15 August 2011
Negligence by the medical professional is also punishable under IPC,so you can file criminal complaint against the doctors,to teach them the lesson.
