M S BHATAMBRE Vs. BABU K KOPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Latur in Complaint No.147/96 wherein the appellant Dr. Bhatambre, has been directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in respect of the death of his child of 7 months age, on account of negligence in the treatment of the child. The appellant/doctor has contended that this judgment cannot be sustained and that the order of compensation should be set aside because the District Forum has not considered the case by referring to the treatment, which the appellant gave to the child. The entire treatment has been given in pursuance of the established medical literature and there was, therefore, no question of negligence on the part of the appellant in administering the drugs and injections to the said child of the complainant. As against this, the complainant has contended that the appellant was totally negligent in treating the ailing child, that there was delay in giving blood transfusion, there was also administra-tion of wrong drugs and injections. This resulted in untimely death of the male child of the complainant and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- can by no means, seems to be exaggerated and the order deserves to be confirmed.

(2.) In order to appreciate this rival controversy, the few facts needs to be considered in this appeal. The complainant lost his 7 months old child. The complainant stays at Ahmedpur, District Latur and on 20.3.1996, the male child fell sick and hence the child was treated by 2 doctors, Dr. Tompe and R. Ugile at Ahmedpur. However, when the child did not improve but showed signs of deterioration in the health, the child was removed to the hospital of the appellant/dr. Bhatambre at Latur. The appellant enjoyed the reputation as good doctor. He is also associated as Professor with the local Medical College and it is, therefore, persuaded the complainant to take the child to the hospital of the appellant. The child was admitted in the hospital at about 5.30 p. m. on 13.3.1996 and the appellant examined the child after admitting the child in the hospital. The appellant tried to diagnose the deceased child but according to the complainant, it seems that the diagnosis was totally wrong. The complainant spent monies in paying the fees for the treatment of child. On March 30, and 31st 1996, it is claimed that the appellant gave injection to the child and arranged the blood test and X-ray. However, the ailment of the child did not show any signs of diminishing. On 1.4.1996 Saline was given, so also blood transfusion was given but it is contended that none of the modes of treatment adopted by the appellant in retrieving the child from the sickness worked and that to the great misfortune of the complainant, the said child died at about 9.15 p. m. on 1.4.1996. The complainant vehemently contended that the doctors refused to give papers and that the treatment proceeded on wrong basis, which caused the death of the child. This has to be panalised by awarding compensation and the same has been done by the District Forum, Latur. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss of a male child can on no reckoning seems to be on a higher side but on the other hand on the conservative side. If law permits, the compensation should be raised to a very higher figure in order to compensate the complainant who lost his son. In the son he could see a bright future and future assistance to the family.

(3.) The appellant contended that the entire allegations are wrong that the complainant, in order to damage the reputation of the appellant, approached the police and lodged the complaint. Fortunately, the treatment given was absolutely consistent with the valid medical literature and Civil Surgeon with the assistance of one Sr. Pediatrician Doctor examined the papers and clearly certified that there was no negligence in the treatment of the deceased child. The appellant has also given the details of the treatment, which according to him are consistent with medical practice. The child was diagnosed for Septicemia which is a serious ailment and the child suffered Septicemia since before the admission to the hospital. Both the doctors, at Latur gave the treatment and one mode of treatment adopted by doctors at Ahmedpur, was for maleria and the same was continued by way of abundant precaution. But when the symptoms of Septicemia were quite visible, the appellant adopted the treatment for Septicemia. To the details of contentions of the appellant, we shall come later but suffice it to say at this stage that the main stand of the appellant is that the treatment was fully consistent with the known mode of treatment for Septicemia and, therefore, the treatment of the appellant cannot be faulted and that the appellant should be absolved from the liability imposed on him in the order of the District Forum. In case the same liability is confirmed will cause a serious damage caused to the reputation of the appellant. The appellant is associated with several medical institutions. He is also on the teaching staff and this judgment under appeal would seriously damage his reputation vis-a-vis public institutions. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of compensation should be set aside. We, therefore, proceed to consider the reasons of the District Forum in awarding the compensation and the counter raised by the appellant in the written statement. The complainant has alleged that the doctor refused to part with the case papers and thereafter fabricated those case papers. To all these allegations, we shall turn later but for the moment, we may state that where the complainant alleges negligence in the treatment of the deceased child, the appellant on the other hand stoutly maintains that the treatment for Septicemia was consistent with the established mode of medical treatment. The treatment for malaria was by way of precaution because the doctor at Ahmedpur had started the treatment. There was no contradiction between these 2 treatments to defeat one for the benefit of the other.