//
you're reading...
legal issues

Medical negligence- when the complainant went for abdominal treatment, the doctor while injecting saline through intravenous transfusion, she damaged the vain of the complainant which resulted into septic, and finally removal of her fore arm and as such damage awarded due to the fault of doctor. both forms confirmed and their lord ships dismissed this revision of the doctor=2. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that her condition was due to the damage to the vain and resultant septicemia caused by negligence in the process of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood administered to the Complainant during her treatment by the revision petitioner. The complaint petition gives details of not only the medical consequences of the alleged negligence, but also resultant financial cost to the Complainant. For this, a total compensation of Rs.3.46 lakhs, was sought against which Rs.2.75 lakhs has been awarded. “Here in the present case, we also find that the chain of incident and circumstances under which the complication took place to the patient started under the care of appellant-doctor, on the basis of which there is only one inference of negligence of the appellant is drawn. Therefore, the respondent do not require to provide any further opinion of expert on the subject. The Complainant has succeeded to make out a case of negligence whereas the appellant failed to prove her innocence.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

I Need a Doctor

I Need a Doctor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

                                               NEW DELHI                                              

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2011

(Against the order dated 18.8.2011 in First Appeal No.921/2006

of the State Commission, Bihar)

Dr. Amita Srivastava

W/o Dr. B.K.Srivastava

Mohalla: Dahiyawan

District Saran at Chapra,

Bihar                                                                                                             ……….Petitioner

Versus

 

Smt. Poonam Devi

W/o Dev Nath Prasad

Village Rampur,

District Saran at Chapra,

Bihar                                                                                                             ………Respondent

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,

                              PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner         :   Mr. Akshit Gadhok,, Advocate and

                                         Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON:   15-5-2012

 

ORDER

 

PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

The revision petitioner Dr. Amita Shrivastava has approached this Commission against the concurrent findings of the District Consumer Forum as well Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  As seen from the records of the case, the Complainant, a young women of 34 years, had gone to the clinic run by the revision petitioner with abdominal complaint for which she was treated between the 9th and 13th of December, 2002.  However, the consumer complaint related to development of gangrene and eventual amputation of her right forearm.

 

2.      Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that her condition was due to the damage to the vain and resultant septicemia caused by negligence in the process of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood administered to the Complainant during her treatment by the revision petitioner. The complaint petition gives details of not only the medical consequences of the alleged negligence, but also resultant financial cost to the Complainant. For this, a total compensation of Rs.3.46 lakhs, was sought against which Rs.2.75 lakhs has been awarded.

 

3.      The State Commission has observed in the impugned order that there is no dispute on the fact that the Complainant had undergone abdominal surgery (hysterectomy).   There is no dispute that during the course of the treatment, transfusion of saline and blood had been given to the Complainant in the Clinic of the opposite party.  It is also an admitted fact that swelling and discoloration of the arm was first noticed on 11.12.2002.  It is also admitted that at the time of her admission, Complainant Poonam Devi had no problem with her right arm.

 

4.      The State Commission has also referred to the findings of District Forum that the blood flow in the right arm was normal and the problem of discoloration and swelling was noticed only on 11.12.2002 after transfusion of blood and saline in between. The Commission has finally arrived at the following conclusion–

“Here in the present case, we also find that the chain of incident and circumstances under which the complication took place to the patient started under the care of appellant-doctor, on the basis of which there is only one inference of negligence of the appellant is drawn. Therefore, the respondent do not require to provide any further opinion of expert on the subject.  The Complainant has succeeded to make out a case of negligence whereas the appellant failed to prove her innocence.”

 

The State Commission therefore dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Forum, which had allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.2.75 lakhs.

 

5.      A perusal of the revision petition and the grounds raised therein clearly shows that it is a mere attempt to challenge the concurrent finding of fact by thefora below.  Therefore, it needs to be pointed out at the very outset that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is a limited one. In terms of the provision in Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 intervention of this Commission is contemplated only when there is case of jurisdictional error material, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order.   While considering the scope of this provision, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 that powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.  In the matter before the Apex Court, it was observed that there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to take a view different from what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission was based not on some legal principle, which was ignored by the Court below, but on different interpretation of the same set of facts.  Therefore, the order of the National Commission was quashed and set aside by the Apex Court.

 

6.      During the hearing of the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the details of the treatment given to the Complainant i.e. the facts.  Neither the petition nor the petitioner counsel have made out any case for exercise of revisional jurisdictional, as contemplated under Section 21 (b) of the Act and as enunciated by the Apex Court in the decision mentioned above.

 

7.     The revision petition is therefore, dismissed for want of merit and the impugned order of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 921 of 2006 confirmed.  No order as to costs.

.………………Sd/-…………

(V.B.GUPTA,J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

……………Sd/-…………….

(VINAY KUMAR)

                                                                                                                                               MEMBER

s./-

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,333 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: