AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Heard the arguments from the learned Counsel on both the sides.
The short delay of 5 days in filing this Revision Petition is condoned.
The District Forum held the OP/Petitioner Dr. Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary for medical negligence since there was rash and negligent act of the OP and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant.
Being aggrieved, the OP filed a First Appeal before the State Commission. Same was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed. Thus, the OP filed the instant Revision Petition.
Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the material on record.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the District Forum held that during treatment of infected toe, OP did not give anesthesia and also no proper precautions were taken. On 15.10.2009 the patient came back with lot of damage to the treated toe and it became gangrenous. Therefore, the Petitioner performed emergency debridement of the diabetic foot under General and Local anesthesia using analgesic Ketamin and Pyrolate.
The enquiry was conducted by the Civil Surgeon at Giridih for the death of patient. It was held that the OP Dr. S.B. Chaudhary was a qualified MBBS doctor and registered by Bihar Medical Council, Patna. He was eligible to do general medical and surgical treatment after taking proper precautions. He was a diploma holder in anesthesiology from Patna University and competent to give anesthesia. He performs minor surgical procedure in the OT attached to his clinic like incision and drainage (I & D), circumcision, debridement, dressing of wounds etc. In the instant case, the patient was old diabetic. The OP had performed the routine investigations including blood sugar before administration of anesthesia.
Per contra both the Fora below observed that there were the discrepancies in the evidence filed by the OP and the treatment record. There was no informed consent (Exhibit-A/2) from the patient. It was written in Hindi just above the signature of Shashi Jaiswal (Complainant) that too also in seal by using ink-pad. No initial was put by OP below this seal. Moreover, the signature of the Complainant on Vakalatnama and in her affidavit statement does not tally.
Admittedly, OP was MBBS and Diploma in Anesthesia, thus, qualified to administer anesthesia. I have perused the copy of his diploma certificate from Patna University. The Complainant has not proved that it was not genuine.
It is pertinent to note that the OP though qualified to administer anesthesia but he was not qualified and competent to do the debridement of diabetic wound toe/foot. As the patient was highly diabetic patient. In the instant case the patient was high diabetic and more prone to develop gangrene. The OP failed in his duty of care to refer the patient to the Surgeon or to any higher centre for proper treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated what constitutes medical negligence in case of failure of duty. In the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr.[ AIR 1969 SC 128] it was held that:
"The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding whether treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task 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. The above principle was again applied by this court in the case of A.S. Mittal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1570). It observed "A mistake by a medical practitioner which no reasonably competent and a careful practitioner would have committed is a negligent one."
In the instant case, debridement of diabetic wound was not his duty. The concurrent finding of facts are noted from both the fora below. The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited and within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), I find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction from this Commission. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’[2011 11 SCC 269] and in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’[Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]
The Revision Petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.