|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a case of a young boy who became the victim of a doctor’s negligence and lost one of his legs. First he suffered injuries on account of an accident, but the injuries inflicted by the doctors were far more severe. In fact as doctors they were supposed to mend his broken limb and give him relief. But by ignoring a basic fact—-possible vascular injury in such cases—-the doctors were responsible for the boy losing his leg. The case that came up before the apex consumer court some time ago makes very sad reading. It also highlights the need for medical professionals to take every care that is required of them while dealing with patients. But the case also underscores the need for consumer courts to be far more liberal when it comes to awarding damages. On the morning of May 11, 2000, young P. Subhash was rushed to Shridevi Hospital and Shridevi Diagnostic Research Centre, Tunkur, Karnataka, with leg injuries suffered in a road accident. There orthopaedic surgeons examined the boy, got his leg X-ray and CT scan done and put a PoP slab support to the fractured leg. But what they did not do was to treat him immediately for vascular injury that he had suffered. It was only after four days when his toes had gone brown and he had lost sensation in them that they ordered a sound doppler test, and on May 15 advised his parents to take him to a bigger hospital and gave a reference to Bowring Hospital in Bangalore. But by then, it was too late. The boy was shifted to Bowring and then to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. The orthopaedic surgeon who examined the boy told the shocked parents that gangrene had set in and in order to save the boy, his left leg had to be amputated. Eventually, the boy’s leg was amputated on the 19th. Subsequently, a case was filed against Tunkur hospital and two of its doctors before the consumer court, seeking a compensation of Rs 5 lakh. The district forum, which examined the case in detail, held the doctors and the hospital guilty of medical negligence but awarded only Rs 1,75,000 as compensation. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. While the doctors were appealing against the decision of the district forum, the boy’s father was seeking a higher compensation. His argument was that already he had spent Rs 70,000 on the boy’s treatment and Rs 50,000 on the artificial leg. As the boy grows into an adult, he will need to have at least another three to four leg replacements. And all this would cost money. Even though the state commission, too, held the hospital and the doctors guilty of negligence, it increased the compensation only marginally, by Rs 50,000 (total: Rs 2,25,000), along with interest of 12 per cent calculated from the date of the complaint in 2000. The commission further
added that it was amply clear that the doctors did not do what was
expected of them. Yet the commission did not think it fit to increase
the quantum of compensation. There was some merit in the consumer’s
demand for higher compensation, the commission observed, but concluded
that the high rate of interest awarded by the lower forums would take
care of it.
|
||
|
|
||
