Between
1.
2. Super Specialty Hospitals Pvt. Ltd
Smt Pesarlanka Venkata Subbamma
W/o P.Veera Brahmam R/o 52.4.998
Vijayanagar Colony, Gunadala
Vijayawada.12
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE ELEVANTH
1. `2,50,000/. towards compensation which includes the medical expenses. The appellants were also directed to pay an amount of`5,000/. towards costs.
2.
3.
4. on the advice of Dr.Meher Prasad, physician, was admitted to Dr.Samaram’s hospital and she was under his treatment. As per the advice of the second appellant, traction was applied and at the time the respondent developed swelling on her spine with pain, burning sensation, discomfort and gnawing pain form waist downwards. The dermatologist, Dr.Deeksha prescribed medicine for the scaly appearance of the skin due to prolonged bedridden condition. The respondent was discharged on 30.09.2004 with suggestion to go back to neurosurgeon as the treatment administered was to bring the fever under control. On 9.10.2004 the second appellant pierced the swelling with needle and informed the respondent that there was no pus and the swelling developed due to sand bag traction.
5.
6.
7. `3,00,000/- towards the medical expenditure,`5,00,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering and`20,000/- towards costs.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. `36,000/. towards inpatient expenditure from the respondent.
13. On behalf of the opposite parties, the second appellant was examined as RW1 and Smt B.Radhika Reddy as RW2. Ex.B1 was marked.
14.
14. (a)
15.
1)
2)
16. The respondent approached the first appellant hospital on 8.8.2003 and she consulted the second appellant at the first appellant’s hospital.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. ”.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the benefits without taking risks. Every advancement in technique is also attended by risks.
31.
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
32.
33.
‘It is also relevant that though the respondent had sought the opinion of Dr. Ajit Yadav of the Tamil Nadu Hospitals on 30th May 1992, he produced no evidence to off.set the appellant's evidence as to why he had chosen hemiarthroplasty over internal fixation. It is
(2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed”;
21. It would, thus, be seen that the appellant's decision in choosing hemiarthroplasty with respect to a patient of 42 years of age was not so palpably erroneous or unacceptable as to dub it as a case of professional negligence34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39. ESR is useful for detecting and monitoring for 1.the Inflammatory diseases that cause vague symptoms, 4.
40.
41.
42. http://ww.emro.who.int/publications/emhj/0401/23.htm
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52
53.
54.
55. The witnesses examined on the side of the respondent did not state as to the importance of the MRI when the X-ray has shown no abnormality.
56. treated the respondent and referred her to NIMS are to be examined in order to know whether the MRI taken 9 months prior to the date of surgery can be relied upon in the back drop of the findings of the X-ray not showing any abnormality.
57.
58.
59.
1.Saeleemuddin vs Sunil Malhotra
2.Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs Regency Hospital Ltd and others 2009(7)SCJ 748.
3.Kusum Sharma and others vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and others
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
1.Vidya Devi(deceased) through L.Rs vs Dr.Mehrindu II(2008)CPJ 232(NC).
2.
3.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
KMK*
