#LegallySpeaking: C/o Infected Non-United Left Tibia In Mino
Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...
• Tip:

~ Drs doesn't have to adhere to the highest or sink to the lowest degree of care and competence considering the circumstances.

• Background of the case:

~ An 11-year-old girl met with an accident was unable to walk and diagnosed with fractured left tibia, she was given primary treatment at hospital 1.

~ The doctor advised to admit the patient at a nearby municipal hospital and prescribed for plating and few days later the operated place started discharging pus.

~ The doctor then removed the old plates and found out that the infection was spread over the injury.

~ The complainant, took his daughter to another Hospital, where the patient was finally treated after prolonged tests and diagnosis and was undergoing treatment there.

• Complainant's allegation:

~ The complainant alleged that the pus started to discharge as the prior suture was not done properly, a few weeks later, the treating doctor did secondary suture/ stitch.

~ The doctor removed the old plates and found out that the infection was spread over the injury because of absolute lack of care and attention, alleged the complainant.

~ Due to negligent act and despite several experimental operation by the doctor, the growth of both bone of the patient became slow for healing.

~ All the injuries and damages sustained were the direct and proximate results of the negligent actions and breaches of the applicable standards of medical care by the treating doctor.

• Doctor's Defense:

~ The doctor submitted that he duly explained all the possible complications and the operations were conducted only after taking due consent from the guardians.

~ He submitted that the X-ray after the first operation revealed that the position of the plate had shifted and so the second operation was necessary for re-fixing the deformity.

~ When the expected improvement could not be achieved the doctor reckoned that the patient would need a multi-disciplinary approach and probably plastic and reconstructive surgery.

• The Commission held that:

~ The doctor failed to provide post-operative care/guidance for which the daughter of the complainant suffered a lot.


~ The doctor could not perform the said operations successfully rather his act or omission caused tremendous suffering to the patient.

~ Opining that the treating doctor failed to provide appropriate treatment the Commission, has directed the treating doctor to pay Rs 9 lakh as compensation.

Source:
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HOOGHLY
Dr. T●●●●z H●●●●●●i and 1 others like this2 shares
Like
Comment
Share