Medicolegal

  
  





Emergency
Care

  

|
Anaesthesist
|
General
| Blood
T
ransfusion
| Cardio-Thoracic
Surgeon
 | Dentist

|


| Emergency
Care
| Ent Surge
on
|
Hospital/Nursing
Home
|
 Neurologist |

| Obstetric Gynaecology

|
Orthopaedics |

|
Ophthalmology

| Paediatricians |
Physician/General
Practitioner
|

|
Surgeon |

   

[
-: Cases in Doctor’s Favour :- ] – [
-: Cases in Patient’s Favour :- ]

 

  • Amir Ali Shakil v. St. John’s Medical
    College Hospital, Bangalore


    1996(1)
    CPJ 169: 1995 (3) CPR 174 (Karnataka SCDRC)

       

    The
    youngest son of the complainant met with an accident and was
    taken to St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore at
    about 6 PM was alleged that due to delay in providing treatment
    he died early next morning at 4 am. The State Commission held
    that the injured came to St. John’s Medical College Hospital
    by about 6.15 PM and he was taken into the operation theatre for
    necessary operation by about 7.40 PM. During this period of an
    hour and 25 minutes, IV fluid was given, blood grouping and
    cross matching was done, X-rays were taken, Neuro surgeon was
    consulted, 19 units of blood was arranged and then patient was
    prepared for the operation and the operation was performed.
    Reasonable delay in shifting the accident case to the operation
    theatre is not negligent delay and the complaint was dismissed.

       


  • Lekhraj v. Bharaj Nursing Home & Anr

    1998 (2) CPJ 335 (Punjab SCDRC)

       

    The
    complainant suffered injuries while going on a scooter at about
    5.30 p.m. on 11.7.1995. He was taken first to a Primary Health
    Centre and from there was referred to Civil Hospital. The
    patient reached Bharaj Nursing Home of the opposite party at
    about 8.30 p.m. on that very day. This would show that about
    three hours’ time had already elapsed when the opposite party
    examined the patient. Since the patient was in shock, blood
    pressure was unrecordable because of the two fractures – one on
    the arm and other on the leg – and there existed a big haematoma
    on account of injury to the vessel in the leg, treatment to
    stabilize the patient by administering fluids through
    intravenous route coupled with some medicines was required and
    given. Support to the leg was also provided. Since the patient
    was in shock it was not considered necessary to have X-ray
    immediately. Some time must have been taken for clinical
    examination of the patient and for providing aforesaid treatment
    as expressed by experts. It was necessary to allow the patient
    to come out of the shock. It is futile to argue as suggested by
    the counsel for the complainant that immediately at 8.30 p.m.
    doctor of the opposite party should have referred the patient to
    C.M.C. as the opposite parties could provide no treatment for
    the vessel injuries. There is fallacy in this argument. The
    attempt of every doctor initially would be to bring the patient
    out of shock and thereafter to decide about the nature of
    treatment to be given. Journey to Ludhiana from Hoshiarpur even
    by road would have taken about two hours. By that time obviously
    the maximum period of six hours as referred to in the books for
    providing treatment to the vessel injuries would have expired
    and the damage ultimately caused to the patient of amputation of
    the leg could not have been attributed to any act on the part of
    the opposite parties. In the context of negligent act on
    the part of the opposite parties, it was further argued that
    even in the morning at the time of referring the patient to
    C.M.C., Ludhiana the condition of the patient was still under
    shock. It had been explained that blood pressure at that time
    was recorded and before the time requisition for blood had
    already been made. It was also the part of the treatment. The
    amputation of leg was not on account of negligent act on the
    part of the doctor but in fact was on account of injuries
    suffered. The complainant had thus utterly failed to prove
    negligence of the opposite parties in the matte of providing
    treatment or in the matter of alleged delay in referring the
    patient to C.M.C., Ludhiana.

      

    In
    view of the fact that the complainant had failed to prove
    negligent act on the part of the opposite parties it was not
    considered necessary to decide to how much amount of
    compensation the complainant would have been entitled to.

      


  • P.S
    Govindarajan v General Manager , Integral Coach Factory & Ors


    1993(2) CPJ 1211 (TN SCDRC)

       

    The
    complainant’s wife suffered a massive heart attack and died soon after on that
    very day. The claim against the opposite parties was that they sent
    an  ambulance van without the Oxygen Cylinder and had she been put on the
    Oxygen while in this van she would have survived. The commission did not
    accept this contention, for within 10 minutes she had been taken to the
    hospital, where the best treatment was provided but in vain. The reason for
    non provision of oxygen cylinder in the ambulance was leaking cylinder due to
    which it had been sent for repairs, hence no negligence inferred.

       

  • Amir
    Ali Shakir v St John’s Medical College Hospital ,Bangalore


    1996(1) CPJ 169 : 1995 (3) CPR 174 (Karnataka SCDRC)

       

    The
    youngest son of the complainant met with an accident and was taken to St
    John’s Medical College Hospital , Bangalore at about 6pm  was alleged
    that due to delay in providing treatment he died early next morning at 4 am.

      

    The
    State Commission held that the injured came to St John’s Medical College
    Hospital by about 6.15 pm and he was taken to the operatio theatre for
    necessary operation by about 7.40 pm. During this period of an hour and 25
    minutes, IV fluid was given blood grouping and cross matching was done, X
    rays were done, Neuro Surgeon was consulted, 19 units of blood was arranged
    and then the patient was prepared for the operation and the operation was
    performed. Reasonable delay in shifting the accident case to the operation
    theatre is not negligent delay and the complaint was dismissed.

      

 



 

     

  
Medicolegal
  

  

Emergency Care
  

  • Amir Ali Shakil v. St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore
    1996(1) CPJ 169: 1995 (3) CPR 174 (Karnataka SCDRC)
       
    The youngest son of the complainant met with an accident and was taken to St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore at about 6 PM was alleged that due to delay in providing treatment he died early next morning at 4 am. The State Commission held that the injured came to St. John’s Medical College Hospital by about 6.15 PM and he was taken into the operation theatre for necessary operation by about 7.40 PM. During this period of an hour and 25 minutes, IV fluid was given, blood grouping and cross matching was done, X-rays were taken, Neuro surgeon was consulted, 19 units of blood was arranged and then patient was prepared for the operation and the operation was performed. Reasonable delay in shifting the accident case to the operation theatre is not negligent delay and the complaint was dismissed.
       

  • Lekhraj v. Bharaj Nursing Home & Anr
    1998 (2) CPJ 335 (Punjab SCDRC)
       
    The complainant suffered injuries while going on a scooter at about 5.30 p.m. on 11.7.1995. He was taken first to a Primary Health Centre and from there was referred to Civil Hospital. The patient reached Bharaj Nursing Home of the opposite party at about 8.30 p.m. on that very day. This would show that about three hours’ time had already elapsed when the opposite party examined the patient. Since the patient was in shock, blood pressure was unrecordable because of the two fractures – one on the arm and other on the leg – and there existed a big haematoma on account of injury to the vessel in the leg, treatment to stabilize the patient by administering fluids through intravenous route coupled with some medicines was required and given. Support to the leg was also provided. Since the patient was in shock it was not considered necessary to have X-ray immediately. Some time must have been taken for clinical examination of the patient and for providing aforesaid treatment as expressed by experts. It was necessary to allow the patient to come out of the shock. It is futile to argue as suggested by the counsel for the complainant that immediately at 8.30 p.m. doctor of the opposite party should have referred the patient to C.M.C. as the opposite parties could provide no treatment for the vessel injuries. There is fallacy in this argument. The attempt of every doctor initially would be to bring the patient out of shock and thereafter to decide about the nature of treatment to be given. Journey to Ludhiana from Hoshiarpur even by road would have taken about two hours. By that time obviously the maximum period of six hours as referred to in the books for providing treatment to the vessel injuries would have expired and the damage ultimately caused to the patient of amputation of the leg could not have been attributed to any act on the part of the opposite parties. In the context of negligent act on the part of the opposite parties, it was further argued that even in the morning at the time of referring the patient to C.M.C., Ludhiana the condition of the patient was still under shock. It had been explained that blood pressure at that time was recorded and before the time requisition for blood had already been made. It was also the part of the treatment. The amputation of leg was not on account of negligent act on the part of the doctor but in fact was on account of injuries suffered. The complainant had thus utterly failed to prove negligence of the opposite parties in the matte of providing treatment or in the matter of alleged delay in referring the patient to C.M.C., Ludhiana.
      
    In view of the fact that the complainant had failed to prove negligent act on the part of the opposite parties it was not considered necessary to decide to how much amount of compensation the complainant would have been entitled to.
      

  • P.S Govindarajan v General Manager , Integral Coach Factory & Ors
    1993(2) CPJ 1211 (TN SCDRC)
       
    The complainant’s wife suffered a massive heart attack and died soon after on that very day. The claim against the opposite parties was that they sent an  ambulance van without the Oxygen Cylinder and had she been put on the Oxygen while in this van she would have survived. The commission did not accept this contention, for within 10 minutes she had been taken to the hospital, where the best treatment was provided but in vain. The reason for non provision of oxygen cylinder in the ambulance was leaking cylinder due to which it had been sent for repairs, hence no negligence inferred.
       

  • Amir Ali Shakir v St John’s Medical College Hospital ,Bangalore
    1996(1) CPJ 169 : 1995 (3) CPR 174 (Karnataka SCDRC)
       
    The youngest son of the complainant met with an accident and was taken to St John’s Medical College Hospital , Bangalore at about 6pm  was alleged that due to delay in providing treatment he died early next morning at 4 am.
      
    The State Commission held that the injured came to St John’s Medical College Hospital by about 6.15 pm and he was taken to the operatio theatre for necessary operation by about 7.40 pm. During this period of an hour and 25 minutes, IV fluid was given blood grouping and cross matching was done, X rays were done, Neuro Surgeon was consulted, 19 units of blood was arranged and then the patient was prepared for the operation and the operation was performed. Reasonable delay in shifting the accident case to the operation theatre is not negligent delay and the complaint was dismissed.
      

 

 

By |2022-07-20T16:41:42+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Medicolegal

About the Author: