Case Law Details
Dr. R. Singh vs Smt. Shabana (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Only the failure of the treatment is not prima facie a ground for Medical Negligence and in order to attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur, Negligence i.e. 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, should be clearly evident from the record.
Returning to the facts of the present case, though the respondent submitted that Metro 100 injection was given intramuscular and not intravenous by the nurse of the appellant no. 1, however, she has failed to bring on record any substantial evidence, oral or documentary, in support of her contentions. Even the material available before us does not show that the said injection was given intramuscular to the respondent and the same had caused damage to the respondent. Therefore, this Commission cannot presume that the allegations in the complaint are inviolable truth even though they remained unsupported by any evidence.
It is clear from the record that a ‘Cannula’ (a thin tube inserted into a vein or body cavity to administer medication, drain off fluid, or insert a surgical instrument) was inserted in the right hand of the respondent on the very day of her admission. After about 4-5 hours of the uneventful birth of child thorough C-sec, the respondent complained of acute swelling and pain over her right hand around cannula. It is noted that the respondent was attended by the appellant no. 2, immediately cannula was removed from the right hand and placed on the left hand of the respondent. Moreover, an anaesthetist and orthopaedic surgeon was called for opinion by appellants. It is further noted that the appellants gave appropriate treatment for ‘Compartment Syndrome’ to the respondent free of cost, which includes daily dressing and medication even after her discharge from the hospital but the respondent visited the appellants regularly only for 5-6 days after discharge and thereafter, stopped visiting the appellants. Looking into the aforesaid events, it is clear that the appellants had exercised due care and caution in treating the respondent.
Perusal of the medical opinion dated 30.01.2013 reflects that swelling in the right hand of the respondent was possibly due to extravasations of some drug given intravenously and the actions taken by the appellants were appropriate. Another medical opinion dated 16.03.2015 passed by Delhi Medical Council also exonerated the appellants from any medical negligence and observed that the swelling in the right hand was due to accidental displacement intravenous cannula and extravasations of intravenous fluids, which is known to be a post- surgical complication. None of the two medical opinions suggested that the swelling in the right hand was due to any injection administered intramuscular to the respondent. It is further noted that neither any document is available before us, which could verify that the respondent is not capable of doing daily chores from her hand and became dependent on others nor any disability certificate is produced by the respondent from a competent hospital.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
