What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Radiologist

     

  • Venkatesh
    Iyer v. Bombay Hospital Trust and
    others


       

    The Bombay High Court in 1998 (the
    case related to alleged negligence in
    1985) decided a suit filed by one
    Venkatesh Iyer against Bombay Hospital
    Trust and Others. The suit in this
    case was filed five years after
    accrual of injury and the inquiry was
    within the plaintiff’s knowledge.
    Though the suit was barred by
    limitation the High Court went into
    details of alleged negligence. The
    amount claimed by the plaintiff was Rs.
    47,00,000.00 (Rupees forty-seven lakhs).
    The break up of the claim was — Rs. 2
    lakhs for medical expenses, Rs. 10
    lakhs for future surgery, Rs. 15 lakhs
    for loss of future earnings and Rs. 20
    lakhs for loss of amenities, mental
    and physical shock and torture.
    Interest at the rate of 18 per cent
    was claimed from the date of filing of
    the suit till payment or realization.

      

    The case involved treatment of a young
    patient suffering from Hodgkins
    disease by chemoradiation. Following
    initial remission the disease
    allegedly recurred and further
    radiation was given which allegedly
    caused complications. Negligence was
    alleged against the radiologist since
    a second biopsy and other tests were
    not done prior to initiating a second
    course of radiation (the initial dose
    of radiation was 4000 rads and a
    further dose of 4000 rads were given
    about seven months later).

      

    It was the plaintiffs’ case that the
    second dose of radiation was
    responsible for the multiple illnesses
    suffered by him. That the second dose
    of radiation was wholly unnecessary
    (two doctors had allegedly intimated
    to the plaintiff that the second dose
    of radiation was not necessary) and
    multiple illnesses which the plaintiff
    had suffered could have been avoided
    if due care and caution had been taken
    by the defendants.

     

    Expert testimony was taken and the
    case heard at length since the
    plaintiff who was an educated person
    had even obtained opinions from other
    parts of India and abroad to buttress
    his case. The suit was dismissed since
    the doctor’s treatment saved the
    patient’s life and who was well
    thirteen years after the initial
    diagnosis and there was no nexus
    between the treatment and the alleged
    complications, which occurred. The
    Court came to the conclusion that
    “The plaintiffs ailment can be
    attributed only to providence and not
    to negligence of any of the
    defendants. It was his destiny to
    suffer.”

      

    The Court also denied the plaintiff
    any relief due to his conduct. The
    plaintiff had suppressed material
    evidence from the Court while making
    an application to file plaint under
    Forma Pauperis to the Prothonotary and
    Senior Master. The plaintiff had also
    written threatening letters to the
    radiologist and tried to extract money
    from him, gave interviews to the press
    when the matter was sub-judice with
    intent to blackmail and defame the
    doctor and also filed a complaint with
    the Maharashtra Medical Council which
    came to be dismissed.

          


         


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

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

   
    

Radiologist
     

  • Venkatesh Iyer v. Bombay Hospital Trust and others
       
    The Bombay High Court in 1998 (the case related to alleged negligence in 1985) decided a suit filed by one Venkatesh Iyer against Bombay Hospital Trust and Others. The suit in this case was filed five years after accrual of injury and the inquiry was within the plaintiff’s knowledge. Though the suit was barred by limitation the High Court went into details of alleged negligence. The amount claimed by the plaintiff was Rs. 47,00,000.00 (Rupees forty-seven lakhs). The break up of the claim was — Rs. 2 lakhs for medical expenses, Rs. 10 lakhs for future surgery, Rs. 15 lakhs for loss of future earnings and Rs. 20 lakhs for loss of amenities, mental and physical shock and torture. Interest at the rate of 18 per cent was claimed from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization.
      
    The case involved treatment of a young patient suffering from Hodgkins disease by chemoradiation. Following initial remission the disease allegedly recurred and further radiation was given which allegedly caused complications. Negligence was alleged against the radiologist since a second biopsy and other tests were not done prior to initiating a second course of radiation (the initial dose of radiation was 4000 rads and a further dose of 4000 rads were given about seven months later).
      
    It was the plaintiffs’ case that the second dose of radiation was responsible for the multiple illnesses suffered by him. That the second dose of radiation was wholly unnecessary (two doctors had allegedly intimated to the plaintiff that the second dose of radiation was not necessary) and multiple illnesses which the plaintiff had suffered could have been avoided if due care and caution had been taken by the defendants.
     
    Expert testimony was taken and the case heard at length since the plaintiff who was an educated person had even obtained opinions from other parts of India and abroad to buttress his case. The suit was dismissed since the doctor’s treatment saved the patient’s life and who was well thirteen years after the initial diagnosis and there was no nexus between the treatment and the alleged complications, which occurred. The Court came to the conclusion that “The plaintiffs ailment can be attributed only to providence and not to negligence of any of the defendants. It was his destiny to suffer.”
      
    The Court also denied the plaintiff any relief due to his conduct. The plaintiff had suppressed material evidence from the Court while making an application to file plaint under Forma Pauperis to the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The plaintiff had also written threatening letters to the radiologist and tried to extract money from him, gave interviews to the press when the matter was sub-judice with intent to blackmail and defame the doctor and also filed a complaint with the Maharashtra Medical Council which came to be dismissed.
          

         

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:43:50+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Radiologist

About the Author: