Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
President RK Aggarwal and Member M Shreesha of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while hearing the appeal filed by the deceased Ranjit Toprani's family which challenged the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the Bombay Hospital located in South Mumbai area, to pay Rs. 30 lakh as compensation to the deceased patient's family on account of negligence shown by the hospital. The doctors have been directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh jointly. The State Commission had rejected allegations of negligence against the hospital and the doctors.
73-year-old Ranjit Toprani was admitted on June 26, 2004 and operated for Carcinoma of the Sigmoid Colon by Dr. PB Desai. The patient was certified fit for surgery by the in-House Intensivists of the Hospital and Physician Dr. Sanjay Wagle after going through his entire medical history. After the operation the patient was supposed to be shifted to the ward but instead was shifted to the post-operative ICU. The family of the patient was informed that the shifting was done to keep the patient under observation.
The patient’s attendant while waiting outside the ICU and unaware of the patient’s condition saw him having convulsions and being helped to breathe with the help of an Ambu bag. The attending Doctor informed the attendants that the patient had suffered a Bradycardia Attack and had to be resuscitated. The Ambu bag was replaced with the ventilator. The patient never regained consciousness, he remained in the hospital till February 14, 2005 after which he was taken home and was declared to be ‘unconscious in a vegetative state'.
The Commission referring to the Supreme Court's judgement in Smt. Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) said that the onus shifts on the hospital to explain the exact line of treatment rendered and as to why a particular condition had occurred. And in the instant case, it was for the Hospital and Doctors to explain as to how the condition of Bradycardia had occurred.
The Commission next highlighted the duties of a medical practitioner with the help of the Supreme Court judgment in Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole, 1969 wherein it was stated that the duties of a medical practitioner include deciding whether to undertake the case, what treatment to give and in the administration of that treatment. Breaching any of these duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.
In the instant case, the court held that there is negligence in the treatment rendered to the Patient and said that awarding an amount of 30 lakh to be paid by the hospital would meet the ends of justice. The Court also awarded costs of 1 lakh to be paid by both the Doctors jointly and severally and held that 'Duty of Care does not end with the Surgery'.
86540
103860
630
114
59824