ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly stated the facts leading to filing the case were that the respondent/complainant took his son suffering from diarrhoea to the petitioner on 21.9.1995 wherein he administered water of Isolyte P-01, upon which the hand of the child started blackening spreading to his fingers, as a result of which the movement of his fore-arm and fingers became restricted. In this situation, the complainant got his son examined by Dr. Binod Kumar Singh and Dr. Purnendu Ojha was also consulted. When no improvement was being noticed, the child was taken to Janaksheela Nursing Home, where his right hand, below elbow, had to be amputated. It was the case of the complainant that the child has become handicapped for his whole of life on account of medical negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner Doctor, was filed before the District Forum.
3. It is very sad to note that in his written version the petitioner initially denied having given any treatment except prescribing certain medicine as per prescription. Any medical negligence on his part is denied as according to him he did not administer the water Isolyte. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, including the evidence advanced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs, 50,000. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, While the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the complainant to the extent that amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. We have gone through the prescription brought on record dated 29.1.2005, wherein along with other the following was advised:
Iso Lyte P-01
Saline Set
Scolvein Set No. 23
Ringer-01
Taxim (250) mg
Dexona 1 Vil lc.
5. We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel as to when Isolyte P-01 was to be administered along with saline, then could this have been done by any other person other than a qualified Physician? There was no answer to this particular question. As per concurrent finding of the fact returned by both the lower Fora, we cannot but endorse the fact that the petitioner advised administration of above medicine through saline and it was done at his clinic and in order to escape his liability, a totally false and untenable stand has been advanced by the petitioner that the child came with the servant of the complainant and he only advised. There cannot be anything far from the truth then this unacceptable and exceptionable stand of the professional Doctor, which we find totally unacceptable. In our view, the petitioner Doctor is intellectually dishonest.
6. As per the affidavit filed by the complainant and which has not been rebutted, is the fact that as soon as saline water with medicine were transfused in the right hand, the hand started blackening and movement of fingers also stopped, necessitating amputation of the hand below elbow, which was done at Janaksheela Nursing Home, Patna, rendering the factum permanently disabled from the very childhood, which is enough to fix the responsibility of Dr. Sharma, petitioner for being medically negligent. Almost similar was the issue in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. v. Harjjot Ahhavalia through K.S. Ahlmvalia and Anr. reported in 1 (1998) CPJ1 (SC) : 2007 Med. L.R. 899 (SC).
7. The negligence is obvious that the Doctor administered transfusion without testing whether medicine may cause reaction. The State Commission has, in our view, rightly relied upon the medical literature titled “A short practice of surgery”. It was the case of the petitioner before the State Commission that gangrene cannot result from transfusion nor can the hand be required to be amputated on that ground. In the same medical literature the reasons for gangrene have been mentioned, Arterial obstruction and infection wore also causative of gangrene. The result was that on account of transfusion without testing, whether medicine can have any adverse effect/reaction, there was blackening of hand resulting in restrictive movement of arm and fingers and which subsequently had to be amputated as it was affected by gangrene, on account of above stated negligence on the part of the petitioner.
8. In view of the detailed reasoning given by both the lower Fora, we find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission albeit with increasing the quantum of compensation.
9. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed.