Medicolegal

|
Anaesthesist
| General
| Blood
Transfusion | Cardio-Thoracic
Surgeon | Dentist
|

| Emergency
Care | Ent Surgeon
|
Hospital/Nursing
Home | Neurologist |

| Obstetric Gynaecology
| Orthopaedics |

|
Ophthalmology

| Paediatricians |
Physician/General
Practitioner |

|
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
  complainant’s 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.