Medical Negligence established if conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner

Anil Kumar Singh Vs Jitendra Kr. Singh (NCDRC Delhi)

Medical Negligence would be established if conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) have allowed the Revision Petition in favour of the Complainant as medical negligence of the doctor was established as the Complainant was able to discharge its initial burden of proof.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against two separate orders dated 31.08.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh and order dated 18.07.2013 of Balia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records were that in the night of 07.08.2010, two bones of complainant’s wife, got fractured and in the morning of 08.08.2010 at about 4.00 a.m., complainant got admitted his wife in the nursing home of the opposite party on the same day. Left leg was operated of his wife and installed steel rod in the fractured leg and she got discharged from the nursing home on 20.08.2010. The Opposite Party took Rs. 12000/- towards operation and Rs.24,000/- towards other expenses but there was no relaxation in the pain of the leg of the wife of complainant. The opposite party told that it will be fine and when the pain did no subside, she got herself examined from another Doctor on 09.11.2010 and after conducting X-ray and examination, she was told that due to installation of thick steel rod with negligence, it busted the bone and has damaged the knee due to long rod and opined for visiting the BHU. Even in BHU, it was suggested that rod will be removed and gave estimate of operation of Rs.2 lacs. On being informed, the opposite party told that since negligence has been committed due to his action during operation, opposite party will himself remove the rod and she will be fine. Due to financial constraint, the rod was got removed through Opposite Party on 11.03.2011. The opposite party charged Rs. 15,000/- but even thereafter, there was no improvement in her pain. Due to negligence of the opposite party, the wife of complainant is not able to carry out her daily routine work without support and also not able to bring up the children. The left leg of his wife got thinner. The Complainant got examined his wife from various doctors at Banaras and the Apex Hospital gave an estimate of Rs.6 lacs for re-operation of the busted bone of left leg and damaged knee. The complainant has already spent Rs.4,00,000/- on the treatment of his wife. Being aggrieved of the said act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint. Being aggrieved of the said order of the District Forum, both Petitioner and the Respondent appealed in the State Commission and State Commission vide two separate orders dated 31.08.2016 dismissed the FA No. 1922 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner for enhancement of compensation and allowed the appeal of the Respondent in Appeal No. 1729 of 2013. Hence, the Petitioner is before this Commission in the present RP.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.