National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sanjay Gangadhar Chavan vs Najma Ramjan Pinjari on 23 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3638 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 07/02/2014 in Appeal No. 1001/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. SANJAY GANGADHAR CHAVAN R/O. ARVI,TQ. DHULE MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAJMA RAMJAN PINJARI R/O. BALAPUR, TQ DHULE MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 23 Mar 2015 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
The often quoted legal definition of a 'quack' is 'boastful pretender to medical skill', but a 'quack' may have greater skill, and it is the claim to cure by remedies which he knows have no efficacy which makes him a 'quack' Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) states that "Quack- is one who pretends to knowledge of which he is ignorant, a charlatan, particularly a medical imposter.
The Complainant, Najma's delivery was conducted by the OP/Petitioner Mr. Sanjay G. Chavan. But due to large baby, due to obstruction, the OP gave heavy pressure, therefore the baby after the birth, could not breathe properly and died during the procedure. The Complainant also suffered severe injuries to her vagina and severe blood loss. Therefore, the OP himself recommended her to get herself admitted in Shakambari Hospital, where she underwent surgery and was in the hospital from 16.09.2007 to 20.09.007, under treatment of Dr. Jitendra Bhumare. Therefore, alleging entire negligence on the part of OP for loss of her child and having suffered injury and mental agony, the complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, 'District Forum'), Dhule, Maharashtra.
The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for the medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- for costs of the Complainant.
Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, OP preferred First Appeal No. 1001 of 2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'State Commission') which was dismissed by an impugned order on 07.02.2014. Hence, against the Impugned Order, the OP approached this commission through the present revision petition.
At the admission stage we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the evidence and orders of both the fora below. The counsel submitted that, during pregnancy the complainant was under treatment of Dr. Kalpana Shah at Dhule. OP suggested the complainant to go to nearby Gynecologist or to the Govt hospital, but to avoid caesarean operation she herself preferred for delivery by the hands of OP for which, the OP did not charge any money from the patient. OP was qualified registered doctor. There was no negligence but due to large baby and complications, OP referred her to Shakambari Hospital at Dhule. There is no evidence to show that the child died because of the wrong treatment given by OP.
We have perused the evidence in Marathi language filed by the OP/Petitioner in the District Forum. OP also filed 7 affidavits from different persons in the village and his neighborhoods stating that OP had stopped his medical practice, since 5 years. But, this frivolous argument does not clap any value. We have noted the submission of Adv. Gangakhedkar, made before state commission that, "as expert report of District Surgeon of Dhule, Dr.Kalpana Shah had advised complainant to go for caesarean but with view to avoid caesarean she approached OP and therefore due to negligence on the part of complainant herself, she sustained such loss. Death of child was due to physical condition."
Just on a bare reading of the para, it is clear that the OP was engaged in conducting delivery, unscientifically, causing hemorrhage perineal (vaginal) tear and death of baby due to birth injury leading to asphyxia.
It is important to mention that, the State Commission after evidence observed as following:
We thus, heard the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the OP. We have had no opportunity to hear submission of Respondent/Complainant. We have perused the papers. It is a fact that the Complainant approached the Appellant as she was suffering from labour pains from 16.09.2007. On perusal of record we find that Appellant was holding degree of Bachelor of Electropathy are allowed to practice Electropathy or Electro Theropy. But degree holder of Electropathy cannot practice as medical practitioner or doctor. Even they cannot practice as medical practitioner or doctor. Even they cannot use the word, ' Dr.' before their name. In our view when Appellant himself admitted that he is degree holder of Electropathy Medico only he ought not to have advised Complainant to approach to any other gynac doctor in Balapur. Appellant himself visited the house of Complainant and tried to conduct delivery. It is submitted by the Appellant that he had not get single rupee as fees from the Complainant but the Appellant replied to the notice of the Complainant. In that reply he specifically mentioned that he has obtained Rs.120/- of fees. While referring the Complainant to Dr. Bhumare he wrote one letter. In that letter also he mentioned Dr. Chavan before his name which is not permissible. The report of civil surgeon also clearly mentioned that as untrained doctor tried to conduct delivery of Complainant, Complainant suffered physical and mental agony as she lost her child. It has also come on record that due to such medical negligence of OP the Complainant was constrained to undergo surgery and for that surgery she was required to spend huge amount. In our view the OP is liable for medical negligence on the ground that he is holding degree of Electropathy and he has tried to perform child delivery.
In Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel & Ors reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 2011, the findings of the Apex Court recorded, in the said matter. Are as follows:
Negligence as tort is the breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Negligence involves;
Legal duty to exercise due care.
Breach of duty Consequential damages.
In the instant case, the conduct of OP amounts to actionable negligence. A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine, but practices in that system is a Quack and is a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently a charlatan.
The 1957 edition of Svenska Akademins Ordbok explains that;
the word "quack" originally refrred to 'a person travelling around selling medicines and practising as a doctor', but that 'nowadays' it is used as a disparaging term applied to a person who works as a medical practitioner to a later edition of the same dictionary published in 1942, the word 'doctor' (läkare) applies to 'a person who engages professionally in treating the sick, the wounded or the injured', but that 'nowadays' the term is 'particularly' used to indicate a person who has had specialised training, obtained his degree and thereafter been authorised to engage in such activities.
Both the fora have given concorant findings, which need no interference. Hence, we confirm the same and dismiss this revision petion. The OP shall comply the order within 90 days, otherwise it will carry further interst @ 9% pa till its realisation.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER