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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more