Skip to main content

Mumbai doctors to pay Rs 5 lakh for fatal injection

A consumer forum has directed a doctor and another surgeon who contributed to negligence to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the father of a man who was administered an injection for fever, which proved fatal.

Prabhakar Kudtudkar, a carpenter from Govandi, had complained to the Additional Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in March 2008. His son Pravin noticed a heavy swelling on his buttock after Dr Kiran Gawade administered the injection on December 24, 2007. The doctor referred him to Dr Atul Chirmade of Khedekar's Diamond Nursing Home, Chembur. The father said that without the family's consent, Chirmade performed a surgery on Pravin, leading to complications. Chirmade then arranged for an ambulance without an oxygen cylinder and sought the patient's transfer to Sion Hospital. Pravin died on the way, prompting his father to register a police complaint and file a complaint with the forum.

Denying negligence, Gawade contended that a day after administering the injection, Pravin told her that he was unwell and went out in search of work. At noon, he felt unwell again and went to another doctor, who administered another injection. The surgeon said Pravin's post-mortem report showed the death had no connection with the treatment.

But the forum said Gawade had failed to prove that the patient took treatment from another doctor, who administered a second injection. The forum said Pravin had to lose his life as there was puss formation and gas gangrene due to the manner in which she had administered the injection. While explaining Chirmade's culpability, the forum said it did not fault the manner in which the surgery was performed. But it said that it failed to understand why Pravin was hurriedly shifted to Sion Hospital when he was under the shadow of death. "If the doctors wanted to shift him in such a critical condition, it was their bounding duty to provide sufficient safety measures like an oxygen cylinder and skilled doctor and nurses. The failure to do this leaves no doubt in our mind to conclude that the act amounts to medical negligence," it observed.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Mumbai-doctors-to-pay-Rs-5-lakh-for-fatal-injection/articleshow/39000655.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more