SWATI PRAKASH PATIL Vs. KIRAN RAJARAM VANASARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal has been filed on behalf of Ms.Swati Prakash Patil (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant'), , by her father and natural guardian Prakash Appasaheb Patil (hereinafter referred to as the 'Guardian') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') dismissing her complaint of medical negligence and deficiency in service against Dr.Kiran Rajam Vanarase (Respondent No.1) and Dr.(Mrs.) Vijaya Mohan Potdar (Respondent No.2) herein.

(2.) IN the complaint before the State Commission, it was contended that in 1996 the Appellant who were then aged 8 months, was taken to the hospital of Respondent No.1 on 19.06.1996 since she was suffering from loose motions and vomiting. After examination, she was admitted in the hospital on 20.06.1996 and Respondent No.1 decided to inject IV fluids through the veins near the elbow joint of the right arm as a part of the treatment. In the process, a number of veins were badly punctured, cut and incised apparently because the proper vein could not be easily located for injecting the IV fluids as result of which the right hand of the Appellant became very swollen. When Appellant continued to be in great pain and her condition worsened on 21.06.1996, the parents of the Appellant called Respondent No.1 to the hospital to examine the Appellant but he did not come till 10.00 am. It was also noted by the Appellant's guardian that the fingertips of the swollen hand of the Appellant had started becoming black. Therefore, losing confidence in the medical treatment by Respondent No.1, Appellant's guardians demanded immediate discharge from the hospital. Appellant was thereafter taken to the hospital of Respondent No.2 at 10.00 am on 21.06.1996 where on examination it was found that the right hand of the Appellant was swollen and her fingertips had blackened. Respondent No.2 recorded that this was case of gangrene and an expert opinion of a specialist, Dr.Badave, was sought who confirmed the same. Treatment was started but on 22.06.1996 the condition of the Appellant worsened with the gangrene gradually spreading to the upper portion of the arm. Appellant' guardians realised that Respondent No.2 was not able to control the gangrene nor was the required treatment given for its prevention/spread. Therefore, they decided to shift Appellant to Wanless Hospital, Miraj on 22.06.1996. The doctors at Wanless Hospital opined that if proper treatment had been started, to check spread of gangrene within 6 hours of its detection, the situation would not have aggravated to this extent. The doctors at the said hospital tried their best to save the Appellant's hand but finally had to amputate the right hand of the Appellant above the elbow joint on 02.07.1996. Guardian of the Appellant contended that it was because of the negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 in repeatedly puncturing the veins and later on the part of Respondent No.2 in not taking adequate medical care to prevent the spread of the gangrene that the Appellant lost a part of her right hand at such a young age which has adversely affected her future since this is a permanent disability. Legal notices were issued to both Respondents. Respondent No.1 denied the allegations and Respondent No.2 did not respond. Appellant therefore filed complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of both Respondents and sought compensation from them for the pain and suffering, past, present and future, cost of treatment and related matters amounting to Rs.8,22,300/ - along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of Complaint till its realization.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 denied the allegations of medical negligence and stated that he had been treating the Appellant since her birth. Since she was a low -weight baby, she was constantly suffering from one illness or the other. In the present case, Appellant was brought to the hospital with complaints of loose motions for two days, fever and vomiting and was therefore, hospitalised the next day. In order to check dehydration which could be life threatening, as per standard case management, a saline IV drip was given to the Appellant. Admittedly, it was difficult to locate the vein in the arm despite several attempts and therefore, the IV fluids were final given through a vein in her leg. Her condition was also constantly monitored and on 21.06.1996, the diahorrea was coming under control. However, since the child was crying incessantly, her parents insisted on shifting her to another hospital against Respondent No.1's medical advice. At the time of discharge, there was some redness and swelling in the arm but no symptoms of gangrene. This fact was confirmed by the medical records of Respondent No.2 at the time of Appellant's admission to that hospital. The allegations made of medical negligence causing gangrene thus are false and even the case filed by the Appellant's guardian before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 304 of IPC was dismissed.