Medico-Legal

"A doctor need not be held negligent simply because something went wrong" - National Commission dismissed case for compensation of Rs.70 lakhs. Yet Again the national Commission reiterated the view of Apex Court in its recent judgment of Sunil Kumar Gupta V/s. Escorts Heart Center. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… Facts : 1. The 24 yrs old Complainant was suffering VSD (Ventricular Septal Defect) in the heart, since childhood. 2. The patient was operated for VSD, but after 2 months patient felt some heart problems and when he got further checkup done, he learnt that the VSD was not closed but the valve of his heart has been replaced during operation. 3. Thus the Complainant alleged Fraud upon Doctors and claimed Rs. 70 lakhs as compensation. Doctors side : 1. at the time of operation it was found that patient was having Severe Aortic Regurgitation, the surgeon came outside the operation theatre and explained the condition of Ao

“It is the prerogative of a Doctor to decide the line of Treatment, based on his/her skills” The Doctors were saved from paying Rs.25 lakhs as compensation on allegations of  Medical Negligence  for performing unnecessary operations and (the worse) from the allegation of removal of kidney by the National Commission in its recent following judgment in the case of USHA DEVI V/s. E.S.I.C. MODEL HOSPITAL & ANR, BIHAR. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… Case of the Complainant : 1. The Complainant got herself admitted for the treatment of piles & pain in abdomen and after some tests she was advised to undergo an operation. 2. The Complainant further alleged that Doctors performed two operations on her, one for removal of gall bladder and another for removal of piles. 3. But in ultrasonography made later, reported no evidence of malignancy in the Gall bladder and hence she alleged Doctors of  Medical Negligence  and field a case for Rs.25 lakhs for unnecessarily

"When Free of Cost Medical Services come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and when they are not.....".. There is a vast difference between the words "Nursery ICU" & "Nursery and ICU". http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… SARVODAYA HOSPITAL & TRAUMA CENTRE V/s. N.K. SRIVASTAVA, SAFDURJUNG HOSPITAL. Facts In short : 1. The Appellant-1st Hospital was held liable for Medical Negligence, whereas Respondent No. 2 Safdurganj Hospital was discharged from the liability, by the State Consumer Forum. 2. The complainant admitted his pregnant wife with Appellant where she delivered a male baby, prematurely. However the Appellant Sarvodaya Hospital Informed they did not have such Nursery ICU facility and therefore referred the baby to the Second Opposite Party Hospital i.e. Safdurganj Hospital. 3. It was further contended that despite having Nursery ICU, Baby was admitted in General ICU in Safdargunj Hospital and there she acq

The Patient took discharge against the advice of Drs - No  Negligence  on Part of Drs and saved Drs from Rs.99,99,999/- !! In A recent judgment of National commission, V.P. SINGH V/s. DR. M.P. CHANDRAKAR & 7 ANR, the Commission Dismissed the Complaint claiming damages 1 rupee short to Rs. 1 Crore. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… Facts narrated by Complainant in short : 1. Mr. Anand Prakash ( deceased “patient”), son of the Complainant was admitted in as he was suffering from advanced liver cirrhosis. The Doctor made some unpleasant remarks and advised for liver transplant to the patient. The Complainant being dissatisfied by the services Chandulal Memorial  Hospital , Bhilai, Durg, he shifted the patient to JOSHI  HOSPITAL,  PUNE by Air Ambulance. 2. The bilirubin was 43.06. The patient died to stomach infection. The Leading gastroenterologist from Pune, Dr. Parimal Lawate told that stomach infection was either due to infected water or hig

M.D. Medicine Doctor fined for calling himself a Cardiologist Can a M.D. Medicine Doctor practise as a Cardiologist ? In the case of Goyal Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur & ors, V/s. Kishan Shukla (R.P. No.4023/2011), the National Commission was dealing with the aforesaid question and the answer was in negative. A doctor must have valid and recognised specialised qualification. See the link for the judgement https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77679872/ Facts : Allegations : The case revolve around the period of 11/02/1999 i.e. The date of diagnosis till 28/10/1999, the date of death.. 1) The deceased wife of the Complainant No.2 was diagnosed as valvular disease of the heart and was further directed to take treatment of a Cardiologist. Dr. Goyal, who claimed himself a Cardiologist, conducted tests pertaining to heart problems on the patient and diagnosed her as Mitral Stenosis with Mitral Regurgitation (MS with MR) and started treatment. In the

" A case claiming Rs. 2.5. Cr. Compensation dismissed, Doctors shouldn't be dragged to the Court unnecessarily, as it's in the interest of the patient.."  - National Commission observed while dismissing the Complaint for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/ GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudge ment&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F149 9%2F2015&dtofhearing=2016-02-02 Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI) did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor refused to do initial stenting initially on the ground that he was no

Fetal loss due to Wrong blood Transfusion = Compensation of Rs.15 lakh +.. Important Judgement indeed. (the Hospital was vicariously held liable and MAJOR PORTION of compensation was saddled upon the Hospital) The National Commission in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Mittal V/s smt. Neelam Gupta & ors, R.P. No.3145/2008) held the Doctor as well as the Hospital for wrong blood Transfusion. (see the link  http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do … ) The brief facts are as under : 1. The complainant (patient) Smt. Neelam Gupta gave birth to a male child on 04.12.1988 in SBD Hospital, Saharanpur, U.P. However she was advised Blood Transfusion after delivery, due to anemic condition of the patient.  2. The petitioner herein,tested patient’s blood previously on 15.09.1988 as B +ve and therefore, one bottle of B +ve blood was issued from SBD hospital blood bank and transfused to the patient. Thereafter, till 1994, the patient became pregnant for four times, but ev

Neonate experts and Pediatricians to ponder over.... The Apex Court in the case of V. Krishnakumar V/s. State of Tamilnadu (AIR 2015 SC 2836, Civil Appeal no.8065/2009) has saddled the huge compensation upon the Drs for Negligence.... The Facts in nutshell may be read as under : The female child weighing 1250 gms was born in 29th week of pregnancy to the Appellant and his wife in, August 1996 at the Government Hospital. But the neonatal expert and the paediatrician at the hospital never warned the parents that all babies born prematurely were prone to Retinopathy of Prematurity (RoP) and that if early preventive measures were not taken, it could result in blindness. The Appellant contended that Within a year of birth, they consulted many paediatricians in Chennai, Mumbai and Madurai, who said that because non-preventive medical measures were not taken, the child was on the verge of losing her eyesight as RoP stage-V, the final stage before blindness, had

Rights of Doctors against Arrest & Criminal Action in case of  Medical Negligence  cases This is a Landmark Judgment of Apex Court. A.S.V. Narayanan Rao V/s. Ratnamala & Another. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2013. Let’s see first the Important guidelines framed by the Court to be followed before arresting a Doctor : A) What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. B) For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. C) A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. D) The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent

"M.D. Medicine Doctor is not negligent when he gives Neurological treatment to a patient in emergency".  - National Commission This judgment is to be juxtaposed with earlier judgment in which , M.D. Medicine Doctor was saddled with costs for calling himself a Cardiologist. (You may see the following link :  https://advrohiterande.blogspot.com/2017/04/md-medicine-doctor-fined-for-calling.html?m=1) This issue is required to be decided finally i.e. the area of practices of M.D. Medicine vis-a-vis other specialties as another interpretation of this Judgment would be that, only in emergency cases, M.D. Medicine Doctor can treat the patient which otherwise could be treated by a specialist. The Medical fraternity may have two opinions. Thus the Law needs to be settled, so that ultimately both, the patient & but mostly the Doctors will be benefited. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… PANKAJ SINGH CHOUHAN V/s. DR. SUSHILA TIWARI MEMOR

Informed Consent taken from relatives and not from the patient herself, who was otherwise in a position to give consent, cost Drs. Rs.5 lakhs. The National Commission in its recent judgment dated 4th July, has given the important verdict in the case of SURESH CHANDRA MYTLE & ANR V/s. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 4 ORS. Please see the following link http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do … The Facts in short : 1. Late Smt. Raj Rani Mittal – 71 years, mother of the complainants was advised to undergo colonoscopy for her complaints of constipation etc. 2. It was alleged that the colonoscopy of Mrs Raj Rani Mittal should have been performed under sedation whereas it was performed without sedation, which resulted in her developing acute pain and that, in turn, led to complications resulting in increased heart rate which led to her death. 3. Smt. Raj Rani was unwilling to continue with the said procedure but despite that, the doctor decided to cont

" A doctor cannot be held liable, if primary treatment is given by a quack" The patient lost his leg due to primary “treatment” by a quack, but the blame was shifted on the doctors for medical negligence, but fortunately Court ruled in favour of Doctors. PRAYAG HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER PVT. LTD. & ANR. V/s. VIJAY PAL. REVISION PETITION NO. 293 OF 2012. Decided By National Commission. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do… Facts in short : 1. The Complainant, a milk man, got grievously hurt due to attack by the buffalos and suffered injuries on his left leg and foot and he was admitted in the Hospital, where he alleged that the treatment received was bad and improper and as a result of which, his condition deteriorated and ultimately, amputation had to be done. 2.  Hence he filed a claim of Rs. 5 laks against doctors and hospital. His complaint was allowed by the lower forums and hence the Revision. 3. The doctors contended that the compla