Skip to main content

Medical Negligence: Panel Enhances Compensation

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has raised the compensation in a medical negligence case from `2 lakh awarded by the State Commission to `3,85,672, payable with 6 per cent interest from the date of complaint in 2002.

The NCDRC refused to give any relief to the City Hospital in Shimoga and three of its doctors - Dr Mallesh Hullamani (gynaecologist and obstetrician), Dr Shashikala Mallesh (gynaecologist) and Dr Jayappa (anaesthetist) - involved in the case.

The complainant, G Rajendra, alleged that his wife Manjula was admitted to the hospital in July 2000 where she delivered her third child. After the delivery, she underwent tubectomy in the same hospital on July 4, 2000. The complaint said that after the operation she lost consciousness and was in coma. She was shifted to a different hospital but was discharged after eight months. Finally, she died at her residence on July 8, 2002.

Later, Rajendra registered a complaint with the State Commission against the hospital and the doctors for medical negligence. He further alleged that the doctors did not obtain his consent before the operation.

The hospital and doctors disputed the allegation and stated that Manjula was heavily built (weighing 70 kg) and therefore, Dr Mallesh could not get the required muscle relaxation during the surgery.

For this reason, Dr Jayappa administered 70 mg of the relevant drug intravenously and she was kept on 100 per cent oxygen. After full relaxation, she was intubated and anaesthesia was maintained, the hospital maintained.

While disposing of the complaint, the State Commission awarded a compensation of `2 lakh and observed that after the operation she never regained consciousness. The contention of the hospital and doctors were found to be in conflict with their own documents. The State Commission also held that the consent of the family was not obtained before the operation. Both the hospital and Rajendra challenged the order of the State Commission before the NCDRC.

The NCDRC referred the matter to the Medical Superintendent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, and sought the views of a board of medical experts on whether the procedure followed was correct. After going through the report from AIIMS, the NCDRC held the hospital and doctors guilty of medical negligence and enhanced the compensation for Rajendra. It said the hospital and the doctors were unable to prove their claim with proper evidence, and the patient had suffered till her death.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/Med-Negligence-Panel-Enhances-Compensation/2014/08/18/article2385247.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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