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

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

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