What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Cardiac
Surgeon


     

  • Sunita
    Vasant Heganawar & Ors.v.Miraj
    Medical Center




    1994 (2) CPJ 544: 1994 (3) CPR 214
    (Mah SCDRC)

       

    Smt. Sunita was operated for
    correction of atrial septal defect and
    mitral stenosis. During surgery,
    patient’s BP came down below the
    danger level and it became necessary
    to give her four units of blood. The
    first three units were tested for HIV
    infection, but the fourth unit had to
    be given despite not being tested for
    HIV due to urgency of the patient’s
    condition. The blood in the fourth
    unit was later found to be HIV
    positive, due to which Smt. Sunita
    became infected with AIDS virus, and
    later on her husband and her small
    child born after the operation were
    afflicted with AIDS. On the question
    of maintainability of the complaint it
    was held that as the hospital is a
    charitable hospital run by the
    Christian Mission Aid and as no
    consideration was paid, the
    complainant is not a consumer and
    provisions of the C.P.Act are not
    attracted. The question of negligence
    therefore was not dealt with. On
    compassionate grounds the hospital
    offered to provide free treatment to
    Mrs. Sunita, her husband and child and
    also offered employment to her
    husband. In view of this voluntary
    offer, the court held that in the
    event the opposite party accepts this
    offer this hospital is directed to
    adhere to its offer, despite dismissal
    of this complaint.

         

  • B.
    Hegde v. Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya



    1992(2)
    CPJ 449 (Mah SCDRC)

       

    The State Commission of Maharashtra
    held the doctor guilty of gross
    negligence for failure to render
    necessary post-operative care, which
    was under taken by him for
    consideration (fee). This fee of RS.
    40000 was paid by cheque a few days
    after the open-heart by pass operation
    performed on the complainant at the
    Bombay Hospital, for rendering
    post-operative care and treatment for
    a period of three months. The fee was
    excessive, unreasonable and
    unjustifiable though conceding that
    the amount to be charged as fee for
    medical services is the choice of the
    medical practitioner. The State
    Commission further observed that the
    complainant badly needed
    post-operative care as pus 
    formed in his chest region for want of
    post-operative care, which could have
    caused death. The doctor examined the
    patient reluctantly on one of the
    post-operative follow-ups, and on
    another occasion did not grant
    interview to the patient.  Hence
    it held that the doctor had charged
    disproportionately and there was
    imperfection, short -coming and
    inadequacy in the nature and
    performance of post-operative care and
    awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of
    compensation to the patient. On appeal
    against this order of the State
    Commission, the National Commission,
    in Sudhanshu Bhattacharya v. B.S.
    Hedge held that: There is no evidence
    of any deficiency in service on the
    part of the doctor or in rendering
    adequate care and treatment, because
    there was no cardiac or any other
    serious complication during the
    post-operative period. Pus formation
    in the stitches is a normal occurrence
    in the post-operation period of
    coronary by-pas surgery. It also noted
    the statement of other doctors who had
    subsequently attended on the patient
    that the discharge from the sternum
    was not serious, there was no
    tenderness, patient was afebrile and
    vital parameters were within normal
    limits, and the treatment given was of
    a superficial nature, and could not in
    ordinary course cause death. The
    National Commission also agreed in
    general with the observation of the
    State Commission that fee paid for an
    operation also includes post-operative
    care. But in the case of the operation
    being performed in an institution
    (hospital), it is the duty of the
    institution to render post-operative
    care and treatment. The private
    doctor, who is performing the
    operation for a fee in the hospital,
    cannot be expected to undertake and
    provide post-operative treatment and
    care to the hospital’s patient.
    Quite often foreign doctors undertook
    operations in hospitals or nursing
    homes in India and it cannot be
    maintained that the post-operative
    care and treatment will continue to be
    provided by the foreign doctors who
    may no longer be in the country.
    Regarding the charging of Rs.40000 for
    post-operative care and treatment it
    found it to be clearly unreasonable.
    But however, improper it may be, the
    demand and acceptance of an exorbitant
    fee cannot be deemed to be deficiency
    in service and hence, it is not for
    the consumer forums to adjudicate on
    the question whether the consideration
    charged was reasonable. It also
    conceded that a doctor has the
    absolute right to decide which patient
    he would examine first and even out of
    turn depending upon the condition of
    the patient. He also has the right to
    examine patients in their turn and it
    cannot be maintained that a patient
    must be examined by the doctor at the
    appointed time irrespective of the
    time he may have to spend in examining
    the previous patient. In the light of
    above, discussion the order passed by
    the State Commission was set aside and
    complaint was dismissed.

        

  • Renu
    Jain v. Escorts Heart Hospital and
    Research Institute.



    1992
    (2) CPJ 391 (NCDRC)

      

    The late Shri Anil Kumar Jain was
    admitted in the hospital on 25.2.1991
    for coronary by-pass surgery which was
    performed on 4.3.1991 and patient was
    discharged on 14.3.1991. On
    21.3.1991 patient was reviewed in
    O.P.D. and it was found that the wound
    above knee was infected. He was
    advised dressing of the wound. He was
    again seen on 3.4.1991 and advised to
    continue dressing. He was admitted on
    4.4.1991 in a state of coma and died
    on 16.4.1991 in the Hospital.

      

    The complainant alleged negligence on
    grounds of :

     

    1. premature discharge;

      

    2. post-operative wound
    infection;

      

    3. failure to advise tests for
    the determination of diseases and
    treatment of infection;

     

    4. failure to give proper
    treatment for infection resulting in
    thrombo-embolism which eventually
    resulted in the patient going into
    coma and death; and

      

    5. failure of the hospital to
    undertake pathological autopsy.

      

    According to the complainants Autopsy
    was avoided intentionally, contrary to
    the general practice throughout the
    world, only with a view to cover up
    the negligence and deficiencies in
    treatment.

       

    These allegations were rebutted:

      

    1. the discharge was not
    premature; the post-operative recovery
    was smooth and uneventful; the
    condition of the patient did not
    necessitate or justify continued
    hospitalization;

      

    2. the infection in the wound
    above the knee was superficial and
    mild; there was no fever, no
    discharge; rather the antibiotics were
    withdrawn, and were not prescribed
    even when patient was received in OPD
    on 3.4.1991;

       

    3. the blood report of the
    patient showed that his TLC and DLC
    was normal;

      

    4. the patient died of
    brain-stem haemorrhage followed by
    acute renal failure and
    cardio-pulmonary arrest. The
    brain-stem hemorrhage had no relation
    with the coronary by-pass surgery or
    with the wound infection;

      

    5. patient was a known case of
    hypertension which could lead to brain
    hemorrhage;

       

    6. the hospital also placed on
    record the diagnosis and notes on the
    case sheet of the patient made by four
    different neurologists of the hospital
    after examination of the patient; two
    neurologists summoned by the relatives
    of the patient; was either due to
    embolic phenomenon or cerebral
    haemorrhage; this was carefully
    considered by the court which held
    that this does not establish that the
    patient had any thrombo-embolic
    phenomenon or that the brain-stem
    haemorrhage was embolic in origin.

      

    On the question of carrying out the
    autopsy the court cited the medical
    text from Gradwohl’s Legal Medicine,
    third edition; “autopsy is a must
    when death of a person is sudden,
    unexplained, unexpected or
    violent”. This was not a
    medico-legal case, and the cause of
    death had been determined precisely. On
    the allegation that the hospital
    failed to inform that he was suffering
    from brain-stem haemorrhage and there
    was little hope of recovery, the court
    observed that the complainant’s own
    doctor had noted that poor prognosis
    has been explained to the relatives. At
    the conclusion of the hearing the
    hospital, purely on compassionate
    considerations, agreed to refund ex-gratia
    the amount of Rs.20000/- deposited at
    the time of his re-admission on
    4.4.1991. The court, however, made it
    clear that there had been no
    deficiency in diagnosis and treatment
    of the patient in the hospital, and
    the refund could not be interpreted,
    directly or indirectly, as admission
    of any lapse. The court was assured
    that the complainants would accept the
    refund in this spirit and would not
    agitate the matter any further.. On
    these grounds the  Commission
    held that there was no deficiency in
    service, and dismissed the complaint.

         

  • Study
    Circle Society v. Choithram Hospital
    and Research Centre


    State
    Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
    Madhya Pradesh : Bhopal

       

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -
    Sections 17, 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(d) -
    Medical negligence – Child went into
    coma after treatment – Not given
    proper nursing care for recovery from
    coma – Compensation for negligence -
    No document filled or any oral
    evidence adduced – Indicating any kind
    of negligence in performance of
    operation or in post operative care -
    Complainant failed to establish any
    kind of negligence on the part of
    opposite party.

        

    Held : The complainant has not filed
    any documentary or oral evidence
    indicating any kind of negligence in
    performance of operation by the
    Surgeon, or in the post operative care
    by the Hospital Nursing Staff. So for
    as the treating surgeon is concerned
    we find that he has filed an affidavit
    stating that he is MS in general
    surgery and has worked as Cardio-Thoresic
    Surgeon in Bombay Hospital from 1974
    to 1976 and has been going abroad
    frequently to study latest
    developments and techniques in Cardio-Thoresic
    Surgery. He also gave to the
    Complainant a certificate dated June
    24, 1995, wherein he has categorically
    started that the patient developed
    unforeseen post operative
    complications.

       

    The complainant had utterly failed to
    establish any kind of negligence on
    the part of the opposite party.

      

    Result: Complaint dismissed

      

    This is a complaint against opposite
    party for grant of compensation for
    the negligence in operation and
    treatment of his grand daughter who
    went into comma on the date of filing
    of complaint.

      

    The Complainant has alleged that after
    the child came into coma the child was
    not given proper nursing care for
    recovery from coma. That the reason
    for her coming in to coma was blood
    clotting, for which due precaution was
    not taken by the treating surgeon,who
    was not an expert in Cardio Thoresic
    Surgery.

      

    Heard the arguments of both the
    parties and perused the record of the
    case. The complaint has not field any
    documentary or oral evidence
    indicating any kind of negligence in
    performance of operation by the
    surgeon, or in the post operative care
    by the Hospital Nursing Staff. So far
    as the treating Surgeon is concerned,
    we find that he has filed an affidavit
    stating that he is MS in general
    surgery and has worked as Cardio-Thoresic
    Surgeon in Bombay Hospital for 1974 to
    1976 and has been going abroad
    frequently to study latest
    developments and techniques in Cardio-Thoresic
    Surgery. He also gave to the
    complainant a certificate dated June
    24, 1995, wherein he has categorically
    stated that the patient developed
    unforeseen post operative
    complications.

       

    In Hatcher V. Black, Lord Denning
    explained the law on the subject of
    negligence against doctors and
    hospitals that a doctor should only be
    found guilty of “negligence when
    he falls short of the standard of
    reasonably skillful medical man, in
    short when he is deserving of censure
    of negligence. The hon’ble Madhya
    Pradesh High Court in case of
    J.N.Shrivastava v. Rambhiharilal, has
    observed that a medical practitioner
    can only be held liable if he mistake
    is of such a nature as to imply
    absence of reasonable care or skill on
    his part regard being held to the
    ordinary level of scheme in the
    provision. M.C Nair, J. in case of
    Bolam V. Frien Hospital Management
    Committee, observed thus:

      

    ” In the case of a medical man,
    negligence means failure to act in
    accordance with standards of
    reasonably competent man at the
    time”

      

    In case of Sethuramani Subramaniam
    Iyer v Triveni Nursing Home and Anr.
    the Hon’ble National Commission had
    held that in the absence of production
    of any expert evidence indicating
    negligence, the opposite parties
    cannot be held to be negligent in the
    service in treating the patient.

      

    As has been held in case of Darshan
    Devi v. Rajeshwari Prasad, in this
    case also, nobody has opined that
    there was any negligence of
    recklessness or departure from
    accepted and established rules of
    treatment.

       

    As such we find that the complainant
    had utterly failed to establish any
    kind of negligence on the part of the
    opposite party we therefore, dismiss
    the complaint with no order as to
    costs.

         

  • T.Rama
    Rao v Vijaya Hospital & Anr.


    1997
    (3) CPJ 59 : 1997 (3) CPR477 (Tamil
    Nadu SCDRC).

      

    The complainant’s wife Dr Vijaya Laxmi
    a doctor was operytaed for mitral
    stenosis , with Dr K.M Cherian as the
    Chief Surgeon . It was alleged that
    subsequently she developed paralysis
    of her left side body and taken to
    Vijaya Hospital where C.T scan was
    done and Dr K.Cherian of the second
    Opposite party Madras Medical Mission
    declared that it was not a surgical
    case , but a medical case and would be
    alright under a neurophysician’s care
    , but no neurophysician attended 
    for a week and  ultimately she
    passed away due to lack of proper and
    timely.

       

    The first opposite party contended
    that Dr Vijayalaxmi was under the
    entire treatment of the 2nd opposite
    party which is an independent body
    consisting of its own specialists and
    assistants and are paying for the
    charges to the 1 st opposite party for
    providing them with consultation rooms
    and other facilities. The first
    opposite party  provides nursing
    facilities  and laboratory
    services to these consultants . This
    was not disputed by the 2nd opposite
    party. Therefore the commission held
    that there is no clearly
    employer-employee relationship
    (Master-Servant relationship,
    Principal-Agent relationship) and
    hence no question of vicarious
    liability of the 1st opposite party
    for any deficiency in service in the
    treatment by the second opposite party
    arises.

        

    As regards the main complaint that no
    neurophysician attended on her from
    15.7.1991 to 24.7.1991 there was no
    spec9ific denial in the written
    version of the 2nd opposite party.
    Perusal of available records led the
    commission to conclude that the
    neurophysician had not attended on her
    during this period . But even then the
    commission held that there was no
    deficiency on part of the 2nd opposite
    party as the doctors who were taking
    care of her were competent enough to
    treat her.

      

    It was also alleged that the patient
    died  because of brain damage due
    to clot arising from the heart valve ,
    and the clot had occured because of
    the fact that she never took anti -
    coagulation medicines as advised.

       

    The case was dismissed.

       

  • Anjani
    Kumar v Madras Medical Mission &
    Anr


    1998(2)
    CPJ 308 (TN SCDRC)

      

    The complainant was suffering from a
    heart disease since birth , known as
    PDA , for which he was operated upon
    in the hospital of the opposite party
    after which he suffered a permanent
    loss of voice due to paralysis of the
    left vocal, cord.

       

    The opposite party contended that
    injury to laryngeal nerve and
    paralysis of the left vocal cord.

      

    The opposite party contended that the
    injury to laryngeal nerve and
    paralysis of the vocal cord is a well
    documented complication arising out of
    PDA surgery. Opposite party also
    testified that the incidence of vocal
    cord paralysus reported in world
    literature following PDA isout 4%. The
    reason being that the location of
    laryngeal nerve which supply the vocal
    cord is very close to the ducts. This
    evidence is not challenged in the
    cross examination and no contrary
    evidence was produced.

        

    Also special care was taken to explain
    to the patient about the details of
    surgery and possible.

        

  • Poona
    Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic v
    Maruti Rao L Tikare & Anr


    1995
    (1) CPJ 232 :1995 (1) CPR 661 (NCDRC)

      

    Was an appeal against the decision of
    Maharashtra State Commission which had
    held that not providing necessary
    papers of treatment to the patient
    constitutes negligence and deficiency
    of service.

      

    The National Commission held that this
    did not constitute negligence or
    deficiency in service as there was no
    legal duty cast on the hospital to
    furnish such documents to a patient
    .No material was placed before the
    Commission to show that either by law
    or by by convention or by practice
    there was any obligation on the part
    of the hospital to furnish to the
    patient full particulars of the
    surgical operation performed on him.
    Also the hospital had duly given the
    discharge card and slip and a case
    sheet wherein the particulars of the
    diagnosis and the treatment
    administered had been mentioned.

      


        


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

Cardiac Surgeon
     

  • Sunita Vasant Heganawar & Ors.v.Miraj Medical Center
    1994 (2) CPJ 544: 1994 (3) CPR 214 (Mah SCDRC)
       
    Smt. Sunita was operated for correction of atrial septal defect and mitral stenosis. During surgery, patient’s BP came down below the danger level and it became necessary to give her four units of blood. The first three units were tested for HIV infection, but the fourth unit had to be given despite not being tested for HIV due to urgency of the patient’s condition. The blood in the fourth unit was later found to be HIV positive, due to which Smt. Sunita became infected with AIDS virus, and later on her husband and her small child born after the operation were afflicted with AIDS. On the question of maintainability of the complaint it was held that as the hospital is a charitable hospital run by the Christian Mission Aid and as no consideration was paid, the complainant is not a consumer and provisions of the C.P.Act are not attracted. The question of negligence therefore was not dealt with. On compassionate grounds the hospital offered to provide free treatment to Mrs. Sunita, her husband and child and also offered employment to her husband. In view of this voluntary offer, the court held that in the event the opposite party accepts this offer this hospital is directed to adhere to its offer, despite dismissal of this complaint.
         

  • B. Hegde v. Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya
    1992(2) CPJ 449 (Mah SCDRC)
       
    The State Commission of Maharashtra held the doctor guilty of gross negligence for failure to render necessary post-operative care, which was under taken by him for consideration (fee). This fee of RS. 40000 was paid by cheque a few days after the open-heart by pass operation performed on the complainant at the Bombay Hospital, for rendering post-operative care and treatment for a period of three months. The fee was excessive, unreasonable and unjustifiable though conceding that the amount to be charged as fee for medical services is the choice of the medical practitioner. The State Commission further observed that the complainant badly needed post-operative care as pus  formed in his chest region for want of post-operative care, which could have caused death. The doctor examined the patient reluctantly on one of the post-operative follow-ups, and on another occasion did not grant interview to the patient.  Hence it held that the doctor had charged disproportionately and there was imperfection, short -coming and inadequacy in the nature and performance of post-operative care and awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of compensation to the patient. On appeal against this order of the State Commission, the National Commission, in Sudhanshu Bhattacharya v. B.S. Hedge held that: There is no evidence of any deficiency in service on the part of the doctor or in rendering adequate care and treatment, because there was no cardiac or any other serious complication during the post-operative period. Pus formation in the stitches is a normal occurrence in the post-operation period of coronary by-pas surgery. It also noted the statement of other doctors who had subsequently attended on the patient that the discharge from the sternum was not serious, there was no tenderness, patient was afebrile and vital parameters were within normal limits, and the treatment given was of a superficial nature, and could not in ordinary course cause death. The National Commission also agreed in general with the observation of the State Commission that fee paid for an operation also includes post-operative care. But in the case of the operation being performed in an institution (hospital), it is the duty of the institution to render post-operative care and treatment. The private doctor, who is performing the operation for a fee in the hospital, cannot be expected to undertake and provide post-operative treatment and care to the hospital’s patient. Quite often foreign doctors undertook operations in hospitals or nursing homes in India and it cannot be maintained that the post-operative care and treatment will continue to be provided by the foreign doctors who may no longer be in the country. Regarding the charging of Rs.40000 for post-operative care and treatment it found it to be clearly unreasonable. But however, improper it may be, the demand and acceptance of an exorbitant fee cannot be deemed to be deficiency in service and hence, it is not for the consumer forums to adjudicate on the question whether the consideration charged was reasonable. It also conceded that a doctor has the absolute right to decide which patient he would examine first and even out of turn depending upon the condition of the patient. He also has the right to examine patients in their turn and it cannot be maintained that a patient must be examined by the doctor at the appointed time irrespective of the time he may have to spend in examining the previous patient. In the light of above, discussion the order passed by the State Commission was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
        

  • Renu Jain v. Escorts Heart Hospital and Research Institute.
    1992 (2) CPJ 391 (NCDRC)
      
    The late Shri Anil Kumar Jain was admitted in the hospital on 25.2.1991 for coronary by-pass surgery which was performed on 4.3.1991 and patient was discharged on 14.3.1991. On 21.3.1991 patient was reviewed in O.P.D. and it was found that the wound above knee was infected. He was advised dressing of the wound. He was again seen on 3.4.1991 and advised to continue dressing. He was admitted on 4.4.1991 in a state of coma and died on 16.4.1991 in the Hospital.
      
    The complainant alleged negligence on grounds of :
     
    1. premature discharge;
      
    2. post-operative wound infection;
      
    3. failure to advise tests for the determination of diseases and treatment of infection;
     
    4. failure to give proper treatment for infection resulting in thrombo-embolism which eventually resulted in the patient going into coma and death; and
      
    5. failure of the hospital to undertake pathological autopsy.
      
    According to the complainants Autopsy was avoided intentionally, contrary to the general practice throughout the world, only with a view to cover up the negligence and deficiencies in treatment.
       
    These allegations were rebutted:
      
    1. the discharge was not premature; the post-operative recovery was smooth and uneventful; the condition of the patient did not necessitate or justify continued hospitalization;
      
    2. the infection in the wound above the knee was superficial and mild; there was no fever, no discharge; rather the antibiotics were withdrawn, and were not prescribed even when patient was received in OPD on 3.4.1991;
       
    3. the blood report of the patient showed that his TLC and DLC was normal;
      
    4. the patient died of brain-stem haemorrhage followed by acute renal failure and cardio-pulmonary arrest. The brain-stem hemorrhage had no relation with the coronary by-pass surgery or with the wound infection;
      
    5. patient was a known case of hypertension which could lead to brain hemorrhage;
       
    6. the hospital also placed on record the diagnosis and notes on the case sheet of the patient made by four different neurologists of the hospital after examination of the patient; two neurologists summoned by the relatives of the patient; was either due to embolic phenomenon or cerebral haemorrhage; this was carefully considered by the court which held that this does not establish that the patient had any thrombo-embolic phenomenon or that the brain-stem haemorrhage was embolic in origin.
      
    On the question of carrying out the autopsy the court cited the medical text from Gradwohl’s Legal Medicine, third edition; “autopsy is a must when death of a person is sudden, unexplained, unexpected or violent”. This was not a medico-legal case, and the cause of death had been determined precisely. On the allegation that the hospital failed to inform that he was suffering from brain-stem haemorrhage and there was little hope of recovery, the court observed that the complainant’s own doctor had noted that poor prognosis has been explained to the relatives. At the conclusion of the hearing the hospital, purely on compassionate considerations, agreed to refund ex-gratia the amount of Rs.20000/- deposited at the time of his re-admission on 4.4.1991. The court, however, made it clear that there had been no deficiency in diagnosis and treatment of the patient in the hospital, and the refund could not be interpreted, directly or indirectly, as admission of any lapse. The court was assured that the complainants would accept the refund in this spirit and would not agitate the matter any further.. On these grounds the  Commission held that there was no deficiency in service, and dismissed the complaint.
         

  • Study Circle Society v. Choithram Hospital and Research Centre
    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya Pradesh : Bhopal
       
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17, 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(d) - Medical negligence – Child went into coma after treatment – Not given proper nursing care for recovery from coma – Compensation for negligence - No document filled or any oral evidence adduced – Indicating any kind of negligence in performance of operation or in post operative care - Complainant failed to establish any kind of negligence on the part of opposite party.
        
    Held : The complainant has not filed any documentary or oral evidence indicating any kind of negligence in performance of operation by the Surgeon, or in the post operative care by the Hospital Nursing Staff. So for as the treating surgeon is concerned we find that he has filed an affidavit stating that he is MS in general surgery and has worked as Cardio-Thoresic Surgeon in Bombay Hospital from 1974 to 1976 and has been going abroad frequently to study latest developments and techniques in Cardio-Thoresic Surgery. He also gave to the Complainant a certificate dated June 24, 1995, wherein he has categorically started that the patient developed unforeseen post operative complications.
       
    The complainant had utterly failed to establish any kind of negligence on the part of the opposite party.
      
    Result: Complaint dismissed
      
    This is a complaint against opposite party for grant of compensation for the negligence in operation and treatment of his grand daughter who went into comma on the date of filing of complaint.
      
    The Complainant has alleged that after the child came into coma the child was not given proper nursing care for recovery from coma. That the reason for her coming in to coma was blood clotting, for which due precaution was not taken by the treating surgeon,who was not an expert in Cardio Thoresic Surgery.
      
    Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case. The complaint has not field any documentary or oral evidence indicating any kind of negligence in performance of operation by the surgeon, or in the post operative care by the Hospital Nursing Staff. So far as the treating Surgeon is concerned, we find that he has filed an affidavit stating that he is MS in general surgery and has worked as Cardio-Thoresic Surgeon in Bombay Hospital for 1974 to 1976 and has been going abroad frequently to study latest developments and techniques in Cardio-Thoresic Surgery. He also gave to the complainant a certificate dated June 24, 1995, wherein he has categorically stated that the patient developed unforeseen post operative complications.
       
    In Hatcher V. Black, Lord Denning explained the law on the subject of negligence against doctors and hospitals that a doctor should only be found guilty of “negligence when he falls short of the standard of reasonably skillful medical man, in short when he is deserving of censure of negligence. The hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of J.N.Shrivastava v. Rambhiharilal, has observed that a medical practitioner can only be held liable if he mistake is of such a nature as to imply absence of reasonable care or skill on his part regard being held to the ordinary level of scheme in the provision. M.C Nair, J. in case of Bolam V. Frien Hospital Management Committee, observed thus:
      
    ” In the case of a medical man, negligence means failure to act in accordance with standards of reasonably competent man at the time”
      
    In case of Sethuramani Subramaniam Iyer v Triveni Nursing Home and Anr. the Hon’ble National Commission had held that in the absence of production of any expert evidence indicating negligence, the opposite parties cannot be held to be negligent in the service in treating the patient.
      
    As has been held in case of Darshan Devi v. Rajeshwari Prasad, in this case also, nobody has opined that there was any negligence of recklessness or departure from accepted and established rules of treatment.
       
    As such we find that the complainant had utterly failed to establish any kind of negligence on the part of the opposite party we therefore, dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
         

  • T.Rama Rao v Vijaya Hospital & Anr.
    1997 (3) CPJ 59 : 1997 (3) CPR477 (Tamil Nadu SCDRC).
      
    The complainant’s wife Dr Vijaya Laxmi a doctor was operytaed for mitral stenosis , with Dr K.M Cherian as the Chief Surgeon . It was alleged that subsequently she developed paralysis of her left side body and taken to Vijaya Hospital where C.T scan was done and Dr K.Cherian of the second Opposite party Madras Medical Mission declared that it was not a surgical case , but a medical case and would be alright under a neurophysician’s care , but no neurophysician attended  for a week and  ultimately she passed away due to lack of proper and timely.
       
    The first opposite party contended that Dr Vijayalaxmi was under the entire treatment of the 2nd opposite party which is an independent body consisting of its own specialists and assistants and are paying for the charges to the 1 st opposite party for providing them with consultation rooms and other facilities. The first opposite party  provides nursing facilities  and laboratory services to these consultants . This was not disputed by the 2nd opposite party. Therefore the commission held that there is no clearly employer-employee relationship (Master-Servant relationship, Principal-Agent relationship) and hence no question of vicarious liability of the 1st opposite party for any deficiency in service in the treatment by the second opposite party arises.
        
    As regards the main complaint that no neurophysician attended on her from 15.7.1991 to 24.7.1991 there was no spec9ific denial in the written version of the 2nd opposite party. Perusal of available records led the commission to conclude that the neurophysician had not attended on her during this period . But even then the commission held that there was no deficiency on part of the 2nd opposite party as the doctors who were taking care of her were competent enough to treat her.
      
    It was also alleged that the patient died  because of brain damage due to clot arising from the heart valve , and the clot had occured because of the fact that she never took anti - coagulation medicines as advised.
       
    The case was dismissed.
       

  • Anjani Kumar v Madras Medical Mission & Anr
    1998(2) CPJ 308 (TN SCDRC)
      
    The complainant was suffering from a heart disease since birth , known as PDA , for which he was operated upon in the hospital of the opposite party after which he suffered a permanent loss of voice due to paralysis of the left vocal, cord.
       
    The opposite party contended that injury to laryngeal nerve and paralysis of the left vocal cord.
      
    The opposite party contended that the injury to laryngeal nerve and paralysis of the vocal cord is a well documented complication arising out of PDA surgery. Opposite party also testified that the incidence of vocal cord paralysus reported in world literature following PDA isout 4%. The reason being that the location of laryngeal nerve which supply the vocal cord is very close to the ducts. This evidence is not challenged in the cross examination and no contrary evidence was produced.
        
    Also special care was taken to explain to the patient about the details of surgery and possible.
        

  • Poona Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic v Maruti Rao L Tikare & Anr
    1995 (1) CPJ 232 :1995 (1) CPR 661 (NCDRC)
      
    Was an appeal against the decision of Maharashtra State Commission which had held that not providing necessary papers of treatment to the patient constitutes negligence and deficiency of service.
      
    The National Commission held that this did not constitute negligence or deficiency in service as there was no legal duty cast on the hospital to furnish such documents to a patient .No material was placed before the Commission to show that either by law or by by convention or by practice there was any obligation on the part of the hospital to furnish to the patient full particulars of the surgical operation performed on him. Also the hospital had duly given the discharge card and slip and a case sheet wherein the particulars of the diagnosis and the treatment administered had been mentioned.
      

        

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:44:40+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Cardiac Surgeon

About the Author: