Medical Negligence :

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17/12-Complaint-Negligence-Doctor-Complaint operated upon for family planning-Gave birth to child after it-Complaint -Failed to prove negligence-Operation cannot guarantee 100% success-Always 5 to 6% failures-Allegations of negligence not established.

Rajbai v. Madhya Pradesh Shasan Sachiv, Lok Swasthya Avam Pariwar Kalyan Vibhag & Ors.

Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C 578

-Breach of any duties gives right of action for negligence to patient

-Negligence in Tort-Person ready to give medical -Possess skill and knowledge-Consulted by patient, ownes him certain duties - Breach of any duties gives right of action for negligence to patient.

Prasanth S. Dhanaka v.Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences National S.C.D.R.C. 43

-Caesarean Operation cannot be performed without qualified Anaesthetist

Minority View :

- Caesarean operation cannot be performed without qualified Anaesthetist-Indications suggest foetus dead-Risk factor all the more -Opposite party justified in waiting for arrival of any qualified Anaesthetist-Complaint fully aware, immediate operation not possible, could have taken patient to any other hospital -No complaint regarding treatment given-No material to hold opposite party negligent or deficient in service-Complaint dismissed.

K.Murugesan & Anr. v. Dr.S. Sarala Devi Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 542

-Caesarean Operation : No evidence to prove the allegations : No Deficiency is Service

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service-Deceased admitted for delivery-Child delivered by caesarean operation-Died subsequently-Deficiency alleged in post operative period-Proper treatment not given to stop bleeding -Blood not pre-arranged-District Forum held, no deficiency proved, dismissed complaint -Hence appeal - No evidence to prove the allegations - Complaint rightly dismissed by District Forum.

M. Subramani & Ors. v. Christu Jothi Hospital & Anr. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C.387

Cardiac Arrest cannot be Predicted : No Negligence/Deficiency Proved Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d)-Medical Negligence-Operation-Cardiac Arrest - Patient, A Boy of 13 Years Died-Deficiency in Service-Compensation-Hole in ear drum-Slight discharge of watery liquid-Operation advised -Patient entered coma stage before commencement of surgery-Heart beat stopped-Resuscitation done-Neuro specialists contacted immediately-Patient died - All necessary amenities provided in hospital - Cardiac arrest cannot be predicted - No negligence / deficiency proved.

A. Sambi Reddy v. K.K.R. Ent Hospital & Research Institute Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C 165

Conventional Treatment : No Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in Service - Medical Negligence - Patient admitted with hernia - Operated upon by opposite parties - Expired -Complaint-Opposite parties adhered to conventional treatment-Doctors cannot be accused of deficiency in service.

Sawan Kumar & Five Ors. v. Dr. Surinder Katyal Haryana S.C.D.R.C. 226

Deficiency in Service : Delay in Operation : Compensation with Interest Top

Majority view :

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence-Deficiency in Service-Delay in Operation-Compensation-Advanced stage of pregnancy- Acute labour pain-Opposite party found immediate operation necessary-Delay of four long hours-Opposite party waited for her Anaesthetist husband - No attempt to get assistance to local Anaesthetist -Delay in opposite party's husband-No attempt to get assistance of local Anaesthetist-Delay in opposite party's husband coming from Madras-Operation conducted with the help of local Anaesthetist -Child in womb died, removed during operation-Delay in doing operation reason of death-Operation conducted without having blood for transfusion-Patient lost about 300 c.c. blood-No blood available -Patient taken to Madras in ambulance-Died on the way - Opposite party guilty of callous negligence- Complaint entitled to compensation alongwith interest.

K. Murugesan & Anr. v. Dr. Sarala Devi Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 542

Deficiency not Proved Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Compensation - Complaint pregnant - Admitted in hospital - Gave birth to a male child by normal delivery on 17.12.1995-Pain an swelling in stomach-No proper treatment given-discharged on 19.12.1995-Taken to another hospital-Treated till 26.12.1995 - Compensation claimed-Complaint failed to show how opposite party negligent in service - No one from other hospital examined - No deficiency proved on part of opposite party.

Rajeswari v. Antony Hospital & Anr. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 255

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence-Proper Treatment not Given-Deficiency in Service-Compensation-Complainant's daughter admitted for fever-Only one dialysis for 1½ hours given - Blood urea and creatinine increased-No more dialysis given -Opposite party failed to give proper treatment to bring down blood urea and creatinine-patient died-Compensation claimed-Serious condition of patient not allowed more than one haemodialysis - All other necessary treatment given to bring down urea and creatinine- no deficiency in service on part of opposite party proved.

C. Sankara Narayanan v. Meenakshi Mission H$R Centre Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 683

Excessive Dialysis Given : Deficiency in Service : Compensation Top

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence-Excessive Dialysis Given Which Caused Convulsions - Deficiency in Service - Compensation-Complainant's son admitted in opposite party's Hospital for treatment of renal failure - More dialysis given than actually needed-Developed fits, died-Compensation claimed for gross negligence-Patient previously treated for convulsions with Epsobin and Eptoin 100 mg. daily-Tablet given specifically for treatment of epilepsy-Patient had epilepsy previously not disclosed not disclosed to opposite party-Convulsions not caused by excessive dialysis by opposite party-No deficiency in service on part of opposite party.

A.J. Devarajan v. Management of the Guest Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 691

-Expert Evidence not Produced about Inferior Quality of Plates -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15-Appeal -Medical Negligence-Legs of complaint fractured in accident-Opposite party operated complaint filed alleging negligence-Dismissed-Appeal-No expert evidence produced about inferior quality of plates - Medical negligence is proved.

Sardool Singh v. Muni Lal Chopra & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 64

Failed to Prove Negligence:Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Medical Negligence - Post Operational

Care - Deficiency in Service - Complaint's husband treated for Hydrocele problem - Operated - No Doctor to attend patient during post operative period - Injection given by Duty Nurse without test - Patient collapsed - Defence plea, patient suffered Miocardial Infraction or Cerebro Vascular accident - No evidence to show alleged negligence - complaint failed to satisfactorily prove alleged negligence/deficiency in service.

Packia Retnam @ A.P.Ratna Singh v.Dr.N.C. Thanu, M.S. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 314-

Died:Compensation Family Planning Operation:Patient Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Family Planning Operation - Patient Died - compensation - Patent taken to the operation theatre in good condition - Surgeon engaged to do the operation - Patient developed pain during operation - Local anaesthesia given had not necessary effect - Patient died due to negligence of surgeon - complaint lost consortium of wide and mother his children - Entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest.

A.Ravi v. Dr.(Mrs.) Usha Rani & Ors. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 581

Heart Block : No Deficiency in service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Complaint suffered heart block - Regained consciousness - Pacemaker implanted in November, 1995 - Started working regularly - Erosion commenced around pacemaker in February, 1996 - Instead reporting to PGI Complaint entered the Command Hospital - Complaint went to London and treated there - Pacemaker infected - Part of screw driver left behind - Screw driver not brought by Complaint alongwith pacemaker - Non production of material piece of evidence goes against complaint - Mere allegation or suspicion, however strong may be cannot take shape of proof - complaint discharged from PGI in satisfactory condition - Post implantation injection a well known risk of pacemaker implantation - No deficiency on part of doctor established.

Commander Sohan Singh Sandhu v.Dr.H.K.Bali & Anr. Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 392

Government Hospital:Case not Maintainable Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Consumer - Government Hospital - Patient discharged before fully cured, died - treatment free of charge - No service rendered for consideration - Person not become consumer by making payment for patient - Case not maintainable.

Fakir Mohan Bhuyan v. Dr.G.C. Pothal & Ors. Orissa S.C.D.R.C. 206

Inadequacy of Diagnostic Procedures in Pre-operative Stage:Deficiency in service: Compensation Top

- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Inadequacy of Diagnostic procedures in Pre-operative Stage - Deficiency in Service - compensation - Complaint 20 years old Engineering student - Admitted for treatment of benign tumour - after undergoing surgery for excision biobsy became paraplegic, confined to wheel chair - Pre-operative tests not carried - Extension of tumour into intervertebral foramen came into opposite parties knowledge only while removing tumour - Opposite parties not able to explain why removal of benign tumour in chest wall resulted in spinal cord injury and paraplegia - surgery performed without complete involvement of neurosurgeon - Serious lapse on part of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service - Opposite parties liable to pay Rs.14 lakhs towards compensation.

Prasanth s.Dhanaka v.Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences National C.D.R.C 43.

Inflated claim Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Death of 2 years' child - compensation - District Forum awarded Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation - Absurdly exorbitant - Compensation for death of 2 years' child would be much below Rs.5,00,000/- - Claim reduced - Complaint returned to District forum having pecuniary jurisdiction.

D.Venkateshwarlu v. Dr. P. Sudarshan Reddy Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 472

Measles:No Evidence to prove Negligence or Deficiency Top

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Complaint suffering from measles - Admitted Escorts Hospital - Developed gangrene on left hand - Referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences - Arm amputated - Compensation claimed for negligence - No evidence to prove negligence or deficiency - Conventional method and manner of treatment adopted, doctor not negligent or deficient if patient does not respond and die.

Miss Maya Devi v. Escorts Medical Centre & Anr. Haryana S.C.D.R.C. 449

-Medical Terms : "Ischemic Myelopathy", "Paraplegia", "Schwannomas" (Nurilemmomas) & "Neurofirbroma", "Vertebral Foramen", "Cauda Equina", Meaning of

-Medical Terms - "Ischemic Myelopathy", Paraplegia", "Schwannomas" (Neurilemmomas) & "Neurofirbroma, "Vertebral Foramen", "Cauda Equina", - Meaning of.

Prasanth S.Dhanaka v. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences National C.D.R.C.43

Negligence in Choice and Manner of Surgery : No Proof : No Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Negligence in Choice and manner of Surgery - Compensation - Complaint hit by motor cycle - sustained hairline fracture at neck of right femur - Rough handling while taking him for second X-ray caused widening of fracture - - Negligent treatment and selection of wrong mode of operation - Compensation claimed - Opposite party denied any negligence - Conservative line of treatment with skin traction given - Derotation boot given for 9 days - Hemiarthroplasty done for early ambulation of patient - Inspite of best treatment, injection, loosening of prosthesis and erosion of bones, documented complications- widening of fracture due to mis-handling not proved - Opposite party not negligent or deficient or deficient in service.

S. Ramanujam v. Dr.C.P. Sreekumar Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 666

Negligence and Deficiency Established:Compensation Granted Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Deceased suffering from lung disease - Decortication operation performed - Pain recurred after two months - Tumor in advanced stage - Condition incurable - Sample for histapathology report not sent - Hospital has all necessary equipments to handle it - No reason to ignore such a routine matter - Negligence and deficiency on part of doctor established - Liable to pay Rs,2,25,000/- towards compensation.

S.V. Panchori & Ors. v. Dr.Kaushal Pandey & Anr. Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 332

Nerve Injury:Deficiency proved:Compensation with Interest Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Compensation - Nerve injury - Doctor agreed to close the wound - Only skin sutured without suturing nerve - doctor knew no facility to join cut nerve at his Hospital - Continued treating him - Disability caused to leg because of negligence - Second operation suggested - Deficiency proved - Rs.24,717/- awarded towards compensation alongwith 12% interest.

Manager, Martin Medical Centre v. E.V.Thomas Kerala S.C.D.R.C. 136

No evidence to prove Negligence Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Deceased admitted in Nursing Home for delivery - gave birth to a baby - Having some complaint - referred to opposite party No.2 - died - Cause of death, "raised intracranial tension" - No evidence to prove negligence - Conventional method and manner of treatment adopted, doctor not accused of any negligence or deficiency in service if patient does not respond and die.

Master Subam Kashyap v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sarla Madkan Haryana S.C.D.R.C. 505

No Evidence to Prove Wrong Treatment: Deficiency in service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Death due to rabies - Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment alleged - Clinical test conducted - Rabies diagnosed - Necessary treatment given - No evidence to prove wrong treatment - No negligence proved.

M. Parimanam v. Dr. C.P. Jaganathan & Ors. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 243

No reliable evidence to prove blood contained HIV - No Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - HIV Infected Blood Transfused - Compensation - Complainant's wide admitted for treatment of abdominal pain - Advised to undergo hysterectomy - Transfused 2 units of blood in post operative period - Blood contained HIV antibodies - Complainant's wife infected with AIDS virus - Died - Gross and patent negligence in transfusing infected blood - compensation claimed - No receipt for payment for blood supplied by 2nd opposite party filed - No reliable evidence to prove blood contained HIV - Blood transfused in December, 1992 - HIV detected after lapse of about 1½ years - HIV transmitted from blood transfused not proved - No deficiency on part of opposite parties.

M.Chinnaiyan v. Sri Gokulam Hospital & Anr. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 243

Operation:Lived for more than two years after Operation:No Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in Service - Medical Negligence - Complaint's wife operated upon by opposite party for removal of cancerous growth - Died - Complaint - Complaint's wife lived for more than two years after operation - No ground for holding deficiency in service.

R.N.Sethi & Anr. v. Hardial Singh Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 33

Operation Minor Complications:No Deficiency Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Deficiency in Service - Medical Negligence - Operation - Removal of Prostate gland - Complainant a retired colonel, aged 57 years - Difficulty in passing urine for several hours - Baby feeding tube used by Urologist - Urine drained out by catherterisation - Minor complications inherent despite reasonable care - No deficiency on part of doctors.

Col. R.S. Ratra (Retd) v. Dr. Ashit Syngle Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 56

Pregnancy Test Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Medical - Pregnancy Test - Delay of 5 days in the mensturation period - Complaint contacted opposite party - Opposite party opined pregnancy after urine test - Complaint contacted another doctor - Opined no pregnancy - Complaint field - District Forum granted Rs.500/- as compensation and recorded warning - Appeal by Complaint for enhancement - Pregnancy test may not be accurate beyond 98% - No interference is called for.

Manpreet Kaur v. Dr. (Mrs.) A.K.Sawhney Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 149

Surgeries Done in Negligent Manner:No evidence to prove Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Surgeries Done in Negligent Manner - Complaint fell down from moving bus - Suffered serious injuries - Non-accommodation in inpatient ward without treatment soon after admission - Haematoma not properly treated - Surgeries done in negligent manner - Allegations not established - No evidence to prove any deficiency in service on part of opposite party.

N. Venkatachalam v. Christian medical College Hospital Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 560

Ultra-Sound Report, Erroneous:Deficiency in Service:Fees Refunded Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Medical Negligence - Ultra-sound Report, Erroneous - Deficiency in Service - Complaint's report showed multiple shadows of stones - Operated - No stones found - Radiologist deficient in performance - Deficiency in service established - fees charged for examination to be refunded.

Darshan Kaur v. Dr. J.S.Sodhi & Ors. Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 557

Vision Lost:Appropriate Treatment given:No Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections (2)(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - Medical Negligence - Wrong Treatment - Vision Lost - compensation - Irritation and redness in eye - Corneal scraping done - smear negative for fungus - Pain increased - Second corneal scraping - Fungus positive report - Surgery to clean up infection - Small tear in anterior capsule resulted total blindness - Compensation claimed - Infection gone deep involving iris and anterior capsule of lens - Tear in anterior capsule inevitable while clearing infection - Infection totally cured after surgery - Fungal ulcer once diagnosed in lab, appropriate treatment given by opposite parties - No deficiency in service on their part.

M.Sujatha v. Dr.R.Suryaprakash & Ors. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 560

Wrong Blood Transfusion:No Evidence with Resultant Complications:No Negligence/Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Medical Negligence - Wrong Blood Transfusion - Deficiency in Service - State Commission awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation - Hence appeal - Documents lacking essential technical details - Patient survived 4 years after treatment - No evidence to link blood transfusion with any resultant complications - Onus of proving negligence on complainant, not discharged - No negligence/deficiency proved - Order set aside.

Calcutta Medical Research Institute v. Bimalesh Chatterjee & Ors. National C.D.R.C 13

Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Treatment:Deficiency in Service Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) - Medial Negligence Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Treatment - Deficiency in Service - Compensation - Treatment of hyper - osmolar-Non Ketotic diabetic acedosis - Patient admitted in I.C.U. died after two weeks - compensation claimed for wrong treatment - Evaluation of case must be done in correlation with clinical condition of patient - Mere date cannot be interpreted without studying patient then and there - Deceased seen by many specialists - All necessary treatment given - No deficiency/negligence proved - No compensation.

P.S. Krishnaswamy v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. 119

Medical Treatment Top

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) - Medical Treatment - Consumer Dispute - Deceased admitted for treatment f chest infection - Shifted to respiratory care unit - Died - Complaint regarding rates charged - Dismissed by District Forum - Hence appeal - charges levied according to notification issued - cost/price charged for rendering service not a consumer dispute.

Bakshish Singh v. Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 431