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

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

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
2 comments
Read more