Consumer Protection Act and Medical Profession - Lank Mark - Related Cases

Email Print This Page bookmark
Font : A-A+

Land Mark - Related Cases

1. The complainant alleged that her husband died due to the complications arising after kidney biopsy. The State Commission held that the complainant had suppressed the crucial facts in her complaint. Besides serious life threatening diseases, the deceased was already suffering from tuberculosis and staphylococcus aureus septicaemia (a serious infection of the blood by bacteria). These are very serious diseases with a very high mortality rate especially when the heart, lung and brain get infected. Hence, the complainant had not come with clean hands and thus disentitled herself to relief under this jurisdiction of the C.P. Act. Complaint dismissed with Rs. 1,500/- as costs (SUBH LATA v. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE (Punjab SCDRC O.C. No. 14 of 1994 decided on 15.6.1994; 1994 (2) CPR 691; 1995 (1) CPJ 365; 1995 CCJ 512

2. The complainantís 18-year-old son was suffering from chronic renal failure and was advised renal transplantation. He was admitted in the hospital and dialysis was done for which a venous catheter was introduced in the right thigh and kept in situ (same position of the body) as he would require frequent dialysis. But due to lack of proper care like frequent dressing and medical attention, this site developed pus formation leading to A.V. Fistula, which resulted in gangrene of the right leg. In order to save the life of the patient, amputation of the leg was necessary. The patient died after 20 days. The opposite did not appear in the State Commission. The case was decided in favour of the complainant on the basis of the affidavits filed by the complainant and another experienced doctor who testified in favour of the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with Rs. 1,000/- as costs to be paid by the opposite party within 30 days from the receipt of this letter, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. SHIVAJI GENDEO CHAVAN v. CHIEF DIRECTOR, WANLESS HOSPITAL & Anr. (Maharashtra SCDRC Complaint No. 451 of 1993 3.12.1994 (3) CPJ 43)

3. The complainant was operated for gallstones but subsequently he developed structure near the bulbous urethra due to which he could enjoy sex and could not pass urine easily. He ultimately had to be operated at a Urological Hospital for relief and heavy amount had to be spent due to negligent performance of his first operation. The State Commission observed as under and the complaint was dismissed. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was any negligence on the art of the opponent in performing the operation on July 30,1992 and that it was a result of such negligence that second operation became necessary. First operation was on account of multiple gallstones whereas the second operation became operation became necessary. First operation was on account of small strictures near bulbous urethra. Connection between the two operations has not been established. In other words, it is not proved that the second operation became necessary on account of negligence in the performance of the first operation. There is no certificate of the doctor of the urological hospital at Nadiad wherein it is alleged to have been stated that the second operation became necessary on account of the first operation on record. In the absence of any expert evidence, we cannot hold the opponent who has stated that he had performed the operation on the complainant carefully and that the complainant had not complained of pain when he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter. There is also some force in the opponentís submissions that if the complainant was suffering from intense pain as alleged by him, he would not have waited for seven months to consult Dr. Rajguru. There is nothing in the documentary evidence placed on record, which would support the allegations made by the complainant. The complaint dismissed without costs. JAYANTILAL GOVINDALAL PARMAR v. MANAGING TRUSTEE & Ors. (1997 (1) CPJ 295:1997 (2) CPR 9 (Gujarat SCDRC)

4. The complainant was admitted in a private hospital for pain in the neck on the right shoulder. Investigations reveled that he was a diabetic and had right hydronephrosis with obstruction at right uretrovesical junction. The complainant underwent surgery by retroperitoneal approach. The affected portion of the ureter was removed and uretric reimplantation was done. During the postoperative period, the complainant developed high fever and further investigations showed that a stapler pin was seen in the gastrointestinal tract. The complainant got discharged against medical advice. The allegation was that the pin was left there during the operation. The surgeon stated that the surgical staplers are V or U shaped and used in clusters in surgeries involving large intestine. The stapler pin seen in the x-ray is not a stapler pin. It resembles the stapler pins used un food pockets. Evidently, this stapler pin should have been swallowed. The State Commission held that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the hospital and dismissed the complaint without costs. C.J. LAWRENCE v. APOLLO HOSPITALS (Tamilnadu SCDRC O.P. No. 8/94 Decided on 05.08.1998).

Post a Comment

Comments should be on the topic and should not be abusive. The editorial team reserves the right to review and moderate the comments posted on the site.
Notify me when reply is posted
I agree to the terms and conditions
Kapil999 

I was appointed to run a clinic from a hospital facility. The management one day suddenly closed the premises, with all my belongings trapped inside, without giving me any notice. The treatment of many patients was under way and they feel lost. I have complained to police for cognizable offences and also written to the state medical bodies highlighting the manner in which the premises was shut down in my absence. Are any clauses of medical act violated in this sudden and unannounced closure of a medical facility? Dr K G

Rajeev2009 

I have booked two tickets under PNR no. 4408538575, for travelling from bangalore to delhi by 12213 duranto express on 27-06-2015. But on 23-06-2015 i have received a message regarding cancellation of train, then i called railway enquiry no. 139 in this regard and they told that train cancellation can only be confirmed on 27-06-2015 morning and also advised that i have not to cancel the ticket now but after departure time of the train i have to file the TDR online through irctc website. But when i open the site next day the ticket cancellation option said that it is too late too be cancelled and TDR option said that TDR can only be filled after charting and departure. So I could not cancel my tickets and contact the irctc helpline 011- 39340000 and they told to send an email in this regard on [email protected] and they issue me a Ticket No. 1686501, But they also refused the return on 12/07/2015 by saying that I have filled the TDR very late on 03/07/2015, which had to be filled within 72 hours of train departure time. As I have said earlier wihen I make cancellation of ticket irctc website refuse it and when I file TDR irctc site told that TDR can only be file after charting done and departure of train, no other method is describe there. The method of sending email is only come to know by me when I contacted irctc helpline. This is duty of Railway and Irctc to let the passenger know about the refund procedure in case of cancellation of train. So I want back all my money which is Rs.5636.17/- as train is cancelled by railway itself.

abhi0786 

I need suggestion regarding the doctors bill. Doctor is giving me bill for 17000 for 3 day for my wife's treatment. She was not admitted to the clinic, just for three days doctor given her 2 bottle of saline everyday. Doctor is having clinic not the hospital. Can you suggest what can i do?

chit123 

I want to complain against shiv medicos in H block ashok vihar for not giving proper bills for medicines purchased and also not verifying or asking for any prescription and seselling medicines without prescriptions...

nagercoil123 

This letter is with reference to the wrong or unwanted medical procedure and hiding the truth regarding my health. Dr. S.Selvamani, Senior Consultant and Interventional cardiologist [ Reg. No: 36009] done procedures like TPI CAG Successful PTCA with BVS (Bio Resorbable Vascular Scaffold) to RCA done on 18-19-2013. I was discharged on 28/09/2013 with the discharge summary as General Condition is GOOD and I thought that I had a single vessel block and that it was cleared by PTCA method and I can continue a normal life. After Discharge,( since the hospital is around 250 Km away from my home town ) I went to another cardiologist in my home town , He took ECHO and stated the extra points like Dialated LA/LV , Grade 3 Diastolic Dysfunction , Moderate PAH , Sclerotic aortic value and minimal effusion behind inferolateral wall , moderate to severe MR, posteriorly directed wall hugging jet ( MR dp/dt 982) and the Global EF is 33 % although Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai took ECHO they didn't reveled the above points in their discharge sheet and the cardiologist Dr.S.Selvamani ,didn't prescribed the medicines which will improve the EF % . Now I am taking T.Planeb, T.Cardarone and T. Cardace to improve the condition of the heart prescribed by an another cardiologist to improve the pumping capacity of the heart, which was failed by Dr. S. Selvamani. So I suspect that Dr. S. Selvamani didn't diagnosed or gave importance to the pumping capacity of my heart and he did wrong or unwanted procedure like PTCA and temporary pace maker installation. Dr. S. Selvamani, procedures makes me to spend around Rs.4,50,000 ( Rupees Four lacs and fifty Thousand ) at Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai and now I am spending more money on review and other lab and ECHO procedures to improve the EF% of my heart. I strongly believe that I have been treated wrong / unwanted procedures at Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai by Dr. S.Selvamani. I am ready to submit any medical documents and willing to go any more procedures to prove that I had been treated at Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai in unwanted or neglected medical procedures.

View all Comments (26)

Medindia Newsletters

Subscribe to our Free Newsletters!

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Find a Doctor

Stay Connected

  • Available on the Android Market
  • Available on the App Store