Skip to main content

Is compensation possible for medical negligence if treated for free ?

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether a doctor is legally bound to pay compensation for alleged medical negligence, even if he had treated the patient free of cost.

The case reached the top court after three consumer forums threw out the appeals of the parents of a 12-year-old from Bengal who died after being administered an injection of what appears to have been a contra-indicated drug.

Ishita Banerjee, daughter of Hooghly resident Mihir Banerjee, had been rushed to Dr Abhijit Roy's clinic in May 2001 after repeated bouts of vomiting. According to Mihir, Roy asked his compounder to administer an injection of the drug Zofer, an anti-emetic drug to control nausea, particularly in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

She was also given Rantac, a common drug for stomach problems.

Within a few hours of administering the Zofer injection, the child developed further complications, including loose motions. The doctor then prescribed two other medicines, but she died soon after.

The parents filed a complaint of medical negligence against the doctor, seeking Rs 5 lakh as compensation. On October 19, 2001, the district consumer forum dismissed their plea on the ground that the girl was treated free of cost, so the case did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

It rejected the argument that the parents had paid for the treatment. Roy had taken the stand that he treated all patients at the clinic free of cost.

On October 22, 2008, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concurred with the district forum's view. The family then approached the national forum (NCDRC).

On December 19 last year, the NCDRC too dismissed the family's appeal. It said the doctor had treated the child free of cost and the family had produced no material evidence to prove that they paid Roy his fees.

As such, it said, the case did not fall within the ambit of "service" as defined by the Consumer Protection Act.

But yesterday, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant agreed to examine not only whether the family had paid the fees but also if victims or their families were entitled to monetary compensation in cases of medical negligence by doctors who treat patients free.

The bench has issued a notice to Roy, asking him to respond.

None of the consumer forums appeared to have gone into whether it was a case of medical negligence. The apex court will also look into this aspect.

Senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani, who appeared for the victim's family, told the bench the doctor was guilty of negligence as the literature on Zofer clearly says the medicine was indicated only for management of nausea and vomiting induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

He also said the three consumer forums had ignored the testimony of Dr Krishnendu Banerjee, an expert witness brought in by Roy and who had testified before the Hooghly district forum that "only chemotherapy induced nausea or vomiting could be tackled by use of Zofer in paediatric patients".

"If this is not medical negligence, then no doctor in the country could be held guilty of medical negligence," Krishnamani told the court.

The counsel also cited a 2009 ruling by the top court - in the Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Dr Sukumar Mukherjee case.

The court had then held that while administration of a wrong drug amounted to gross negligence, it would also be a case of negligence if the right medicine is not given.

Article referred: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150703/jsp/nation/story_29302.jsp#.VbB3fVWqo6V

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more