news details |
|
|
| After 16 years of legal battle, patient gets Rs eight lakh compensation | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Mar 5: After 16 years of legal battle, a woman patient at last got justice when the State Consumer Commission (SCC) ordered Dr Nirmal Pandita to pay her Rs eight lakh as compensation.
The SCC directive came today in a writ petition filed by Reeta Ambardar against Dr Pandita.
Giving the significant judgement, SCC president Justice G D Sharma (retd) and sessions judge (retd) B L Saraf ordered Dr Pandita to give Reeta a compensation of eight lakh rupees.
The complaint, filed by Reeta on May 9, 1994, got decided second time. Based on the facts of the complaint, SCC had allowed the complaint on March 11, 1999, but the opposite party had challenged it before a division bench of the state high court. The appeal was allowed on August 30, 2002, and the case subsequently remanded to SCC for a fresh decision. In her complaint, Reeta said she contacted Dr Pandita and sought her advice for the termination of her pregnancy in December 1993.
As the doctor had asked her, she reached her clinic on December 28, 1993. At the clinic, the doctor put her through the process of termination of her pregnancy by applying CX pulling. Dr Pandita then directed her to come again at Shafa Poly Clinic on December 29, 1993, when with the help of Dr Phoola Koul, Anaesthetist, she examined her. Later, she took her to the operation theatre. After some time, the doctor came out from the operation theatre and declared that the termination of pregnancy had been done.
On January 2, 1994, Reeta's condition deteriorated as she had started discharging puss from her genital organ. She again contacted Dr Pandita but her condition did not improve.Reeta then contacted Dr Rubina Malhotra, who advised her for undergoing emergency USG. The complainant was surprised to find the report of USG test which showed fetal sack lying inside her uterus.
When she showed the report to Dr Malhotra, she confirmed that Reeta still had the fetal sack inside her uterus. Dr Malhotra then carried out "sub-total hysterectomy C left salpingo-oppyerectomy" and took out the fetal sack. Reeta then approached SCC, alleging that Dr Pandita had acted in reckless manner to extract money from her and failed to discharge her professional duties as a doctor because she had concocted a false story of polyps remaining stuck in the uterus when infact she had not terminated pregnancy and white lie had been told to the complainant that the same had been performed. She was made to undergo a surgery by Dr Pandita which was not needed at all. The worst effect of hysterectomy inflicted by the doctor upon the complainant at a young age of 33 years is so devastating that she has to remain as a patient for the rest of her life having no chance of becoming a mother again.
In her complaint, she stated that she had spent Rs 25,000 on her treatment but sought a compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh for undergoing mental truma. After hearing counsels of Reeta and Dr pandita, the SCC referred the judgment of the Supreme Court and observed that complainant claimed Rs 1.50 lakh on April 9, 1994, when the complaint was filed. It is axiomatic that one who causes loss or injury to another by accident, negligence or design is required to compensate the loss or injury. Any loss or injury produces a right in the person who has suffered to seek compensation by way of damages and an obligation upon the person who causes the loss or injury to compensate or indemnify. Sometimes, damages are only nominal but sometimes exemplary or punitive. A Court of law can successfully quantify the damages of loss or injury sustained by the injured. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Charan Singh and awarded eight lacs compensation and Rs 26,735/- actual expenses suffered by her for her treatment with interest @ 9% PA from the date of operation till payment is made. She is also entitled litigation charges of Rs 10,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
