Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.                 Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2.                 To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 

Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)  

1.                                         On the charge of medical negligence in as much as that the treatment was given on the wrong diagnosis of the disease not once but twice, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 05.03.2007 directed the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- as symbolical compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                                         Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3.                                         The allegations of the respondent that led to the impugned order, in brief, were that he was suffering from fever, cold and eye problems in June 2006. He visited appellant hospital for treatment and was admitted as indoor patient for eight days from 03.07.2006 to 10.07.2006. The appellant diagnosed the respondent as suffering from Pneumonia. However, the condition of the respondent did not improve even after discharge. He again visited the appellant hospital for treatment. X-ray and blood tests were carried out. The doctors of the appellant opined that he was suffering from tuberculosis. The consulting doctor of appellant called the respondent after a month. The medicines prescribed for tuberculosis caused allergic problem in the body of the respondent. Feeling no respite from his ongoing ailment, he left for his home town i.e. Pauri Garhwal but to no respite. After return from his home town, he consulted doctors at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. He remained as indoor patient from 02.09.2006 to 09.09.2006. The doctors of Sir Ganga Ram diagnosed that he was suffering from Sarcoidosis and uveitis on left eye and not from tuberculosis and pneumonia. After treatment in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, the condition of respondent improved. The respondent pleaded that he incurred a sum of Rs.23,344/- due to wrong diagnosis by appellant and was entitled for its refund besides compensation.

4.                                         In its defence the appellant took the plea that the blood tests investigations, X-ray of chest, revealed very high TLCC 19000 P82C and favoured pneumonia and further that on 04.07.2006 on the basis of the clinical picture including cough/fever/weakness along with radiological finding, anti tuberculosis treatment was started. Appellant pleaded that anti tuberculosis treatment was started on admission on 04.07.2006 and not on 24.07.2006. Further that there is also pathological similarity between sarcoidosis and tuberculosis and therefore it was not a case of medical negligence or wrong diagnosis.

12.                                     We are yet to come across a case where wrong medicines administered upon a person for a disease which he is not suffering from would not have any side effects. Sometimes even medicines meant for the disease have side effects. The medicines if not given in proper quantity or dose and not administered properly has side effect.

13.                                     If a patient is being given treatment on the basis of wrong diagnosis he suffers not only financial loss but also on account of mental agony, emotional suffering, and physical discomfort and therefore has to be compensated adequately.