Transfusion | Cardio-Thoracic
Surgeon | Dentist
| Emergency Care | Ent Surgeon | Hospital/Nursing Home | Neurologist |
| Obstetric Gynaecology | Orthopaedics |
| Paediatricians |
| Surgeon |
[ -: Cases in Doctor’s Favour :- ] – [ -: Cases in Patient’s Favour :- ]
S.B. Tiwari v.Dr.G. Panavadhyani
1996(1) CPJ 301 (NC)
The complainant went to Dr. G. Panavadhyani, a dentist for extraction of his tooth, following which he had over-bleeding and headache. He alleged that the dentist extracted his tooth without taking BP and other precautions, due to which he had suffered. The State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency on part of the dentist on 3 counts. Whereas the complainant was known hypertensive, he deposed before the Commission that he had not taken any medicine for blood pressure before extraction. The opposite party was consistent in his averments that blood pressure was taken and was found to be 130/90;the complainant did not adduce adequate evidence to show that he went alongwith his wife to the opposite party on 15.12.91 complaining about the over-bleeding and that the opposite party sent them back home without finding out the reason for the over bleeding and curing it; there was no evidence to link the headache with the extraction; from the medical certificate of Ashok Nursing Home, where the complainant was admitted on 15.12.91, there was no complaint of headache then and headache was noticed only on 19.12.91. There was thus a gap of time between extraction and development of headache; further the Discharge Summary Slip of Sri Balaji Hospital indicated that the headache was probably due to the heamorrhage and hypertension. It was a case of alcohol dependence with organic brain syndrome.The National Commission upheld the finding of the State Commission and dismissed the appeal.
Hari Mohan & Co.v. Kailashpati Pandev
1994(1) CPJ 344 (Bihar SCDRC)
The complainant alleged that the injection given (Tidigesic) by the salesman of the medical shop was different from that prescribed by the doctor. The same was injected by a compounder to the complainants wife resulting in adverse reaction. It was held that it is also the duty of a literate person (an advocate in the present case) to ascertain that the injection supplied is the same as prescribed by the doctor or a different one. A compounder should also before injecting verify not only the dose but also whether the injection is it one as prescribed by the doctor. Complaint against salesman of the medical shop not allowed.