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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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