Skip to main content

Doctor forgets mop in patient’s body, asked to pay Rs 8 lakh

A city-based gynecologist and an insurance company will have to shell out Rs 8 lakh with 9% interest for 12 years for forgetting a mop inside a patient's body after a surgical procedure.

Gynecologist Dr Vandana Amin ran a nursing home in Patan in 2002. One Mitaben Patel consulted her after the bleeding in her uterus did not stop even after a laser therapy. The gynecologist advised her to remove the uterus and a surgery was performed on the patient in October 2002.

After the surgery, patient encountered another problem. A sonography report revealed a piece of gauze was present in the body. It was found attached with the intestine and was creating multiple problems for her. Mitaben had to undergo another surgery and the mop was removed more than a year after her first operation.

In 2003, Mitaben moved a consumer court in Surat, where she used to live. She demanded Rs 10 lakh compensation for the doctor's negligence. The court concluded that the mop had damaged the intestine and other inner parts of the body, and therefore ordered the doctor to pay Rs 8 lakh for her gross negligence. Since the hospital was insured, the insurance company also came into the picture.

However, the doctor and insurance company questioned the order at the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The commission upheld the earlier decision of the consumer court. "Was is not the duty of the gynecologist to verify that every instrument, gauze, cotton and other articles used during the operation were back on operating table after completing the operation or not?" the commission said. "If anything remains in the body during the operation, it is gross negligence on the part of the operating doctor."

Besides asking to pay Rs 8 lakh to patient with interest, the consumer commission also ordered the doctor and insurance company to pay Rs 10,000 to the patient for dragging Mitaben to court again.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Doctor-forgets-mop-in-patients-body-asked-to-pay-Rs-8-lakh/articleshow/47410398.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more