Rajni got herself operated in the Devashri Hospital for removal of her uterus, as a cyst was found to have developed near one of her ovaries. The surgeon, who performed the operation, left abdominal pack in the abdominal
CS Executive · Economic, Business and Commercial Laws · PYQS · June 2019
Rajni got herself operated in the Devashri Hospital for removal of her uterus, as a cyst was found to have developed near one of her ovaries. The surgeon, who performed the operation, left abdominal pack in the abdominal. This caused lot of pain, suffering and uneasiness to her. The abdominal pack was subsequently removed by another surgical operation. It was alleged that due to negligence of the surgeon, the patient suffered all the consequences, therefore it should be treated as negligence in the treatment. But the Hospital authorities contended that the patient's problem was removed by the second operation, hence it is not deficiency. Rajni sought the relief under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that this negligence may be treated as deficiency and compensation may be paid to her. Decide whether Ranji will succeed or not? Why ?
Answer & Explanation:
According to section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The principles, laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Sharma & Others versus Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others Supreme Court (CP), shall be kept in view while deciding the cases of medical negligence. As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. In the present case the doctor is liable for medical negligence as by leaving abdominal pack in the abdomen, his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. The doctor has breached all the above stated principles. Therefore, he is liable for medical negligence. Rajni will succeed in this case and will be entitled for compensation.
Topics: Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Related Questions in this Topic
- Distinguish between the following: 'Contract of service' and 'Contract for service' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Ramesh purchased a tractor from Mahi Limited for tilling the land but he used it during idle time for transportation of ...
- Ms. Rubina was operated in General Hospital Nagpur, which was under control of the Government of Maharashtra, free of ch...
- The complainant booked a ticket from Delhi to New York by a KLM plane. The airport authorities in New Delhi did not find...
- Distinguish between Apartment and Building under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016