National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While holding a
doctor guilty of medical negligence leading to amputation of the right
arm of complainant, NCDRC imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh alongwith the
interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint and litigation
cost upon the doctor. In the present case, the complainant, in the year
1998, sustained serious burn injuries on his right arm due to an
electric shock while working on electrification of a railway
line as a contract labourer. Respondent No. 2 thereafter took him to
Respondent No. 1/Doctor who was an ENT specialist.
The complainant was under the medical treatment of Respondent 1/Doctor for a period of two weeks and thereafter he was referred to Institute of Medical Sciences and S.S. Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, where he was informed about the gangrene in his right upper limb and therefore was advised for the amputation of the right arm to save his life. The complainant alleged that if he had been properly treated for his serious burn injuries and referred to an appropriate health facility by the Respondent 1 on time, then gangrene and consequent loss of his right arm could have been avoided. The Forum and Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no credible evidence to prove that there was any medical negligence on the part of Respondent 1/Doctor. In revision petition filed before NCDRC, the Commission referred the Supreme Court judgments of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1] and Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha [(1995) 6 SCC 651] and held the Doctor guilty of medical negligence and observed that the doctor being an ENT specialist did not prima facie possess the medical skills to treat a serious burn injury and therefore liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh alongwith the interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint and litigation cost.
Jai Prakash Mehta v. Dr. B.N. Rai, [2013] NCDRC 1, 16/12/2013
The complainant was under the medical treatment of Respondent 1/Doctor for a period of two weeks and thereafter he was referred to Institute of Medical Sciences and S.S. Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, where he was informed about the gangrene in his right upper limb and therefore was advised for the amputation of the right arm to save his life. The complainant alleged that if he had been properly treated for his serious burn injuries and referred to an appropriate health facility by the Respondent 1 on time, then gangrene and consequent loss of his right arm could have been avoided. The Forum and Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no credible evidence to prove that there was any medical negligence on the part of Respondent 1/Doctor. In revision petition filed before NCDRC, the Commission referred the Supreme Court judgments of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1] and Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha [(1995) 6 SCC 651] and held the Doctor guilty of medical negligence and observed that the doctor being an ENT specialist did not prima facie possess the medical skills to treat a serious burn injury and therefore liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh alongwith the interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint and litigation cost.
Jai Prakash Mehta v. Dr. B.N. Rai, [2013] NCDRC 1, 16/12/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment