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

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