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

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...