SATYA PRAKASH PANT Vs. P N JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the law doctors are permitted a broad range of judgment in their professional duties and they are not liable for error of judgment unless it's proven that an error of judgment was the result of negligence.

(2.) After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Therefore aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, the complainant/Appellant filed this first appeal before this commission.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for complainant Mr.Saxena argued and reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He further submitted that, the complainant sought medical opinion ACASH, from Dr. Sunil Vaze, Consulting Surgeon. Dr. Vaze opined in detail that, CBC, Urine examination and chest x-ray are must done before embarking upon any surgical procedure. He suggested that all fistulae, whether recurrent or otherwise are to be sent for HPE after excision. Dr. Vaze also opined that post fistulectomy wound, if found not healing, then TB should have been suspected and investigated further. The counsel further submitted that, the OP has extracted money by way of unnecessary hospitalisation for a long period and charged AC room charges. The complainant suffered financial loss, he lost his job also. Therefore, OPs 1 and 2 were guilty of deficiency, negligence and carelessness in giving treatment to the complainant.