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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more