Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
Heard Ld.Counsel for the Complainant.
Mrs.Saroj Vijaykumar Talkar wife of deceased Vijaykumar Talkar, has filed this consumer complaint against M/s.Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, alleging deficiency in service and negligence in treatment given to deceased Vijaykumar Talwar, who was admitted in the hospital from 23.01.2011 to 20.02.2011.
The complaint was adjourned from time to time on the request of the Advocate of the Complainant. We heard the Ld.Counsel for the Complainant for admission of the complaint.
The negligence is alleged on the ground that the treating doctors did not consult the relative regarding the treatment of the deceased. At the time of admission treating doctors had not taken full information. The deceased was a high risk patient, however, required tests were not carried out. There was a delay in coronary angiography. Operation notes are not provided. Operative notes of the first surgery are missing and hence, there is a doubt of the negligence of the treatment given to the deceased is alleged.
On asking about the prima-facie case of negligence, the Ld.Counsel has produced the copy of paper published in ‘Current Medical Journal of India’ on Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Inguinal Hernia and conference report on Inguinal Hernia Surgery performed on elderly cardiopath patients. It is stated that “local anesthesia is definitely to be preferred over general anesthesia, as well as in-site “spinal epidural” anesthesia, due to the acknowledged contradictions and for the above mentioned reasons”. The Complainant has enclosed a copy of a reply given by the Opponent hospital in reply to the legal notice of August, 2011 wherein Opponent Hospital specifically stated that “ the risks involved were explained to the relatives clearly by Doctor Mulay and Dr.Pillai and an informed Consent with due risks was taken”. They further stated that “entire treatment was carried out on strictly scientific and well established medical norms and the patient was treated as per need at the given moment of time”. They further stated that “preoperatively he was thoroughly assessed for fitness for general anesthesia and surgery and found fit for both as per international protocols”.
After going through the complaint, we find that the Apex Court has observed that the deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it can be shown that: (i) there is usual abnormal practice, (ii) that the treating doctor has not adopted it and (iii) the course in fact adopted is not professional man of ordinary skill. would have taken.
From the evidence filed alleging medical negligence the Complainant is not able to show that treatment given was not as per medical norms. A person is not liable for negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way. We observe that the Complainant failed prima-facie to prove that there is medical negligence on the part of the Opponent hospital. Hence, complaint is not admitted and disposed of in limine.
Pronounced on 22nd February, 2013.
