Doctor told to pay ₹6 lakh compensation for negligence

February 5, 2021 0 By boss


There was delay in administering a life-saving drug, says District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Nalgonda

A district consumer disputes redressal commission directed a cardiologist to pay ₹6 lakh as compensation to a complainant, who lost his wife while she was being treated. The commission held that there was a delay in administering a life-saving drug.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Nalgonda was dealing with a complaint filed by Gundu Krishnaiah (64) against Dr. D. Narahari, an interventional cardiologist at Viswa Hrudaya Hospitals in Nalgonda.

Mr. Krishnaiah stated that his wife G. Laxmamma (56) was brought to the hospital in August 26, 2016, after she complained of chest pain. Tests were conducted and she was prescribed medication.

The complainant paid ₹47,300 for ECG and 2D Echo and alleged that the opposite parties were negligent leading to his wife’s death. She was in the hospital for five hours. No referral letter for admission to a better equipped hospital was given, he claimed. A legal notice was sent in November 2017 but was unanswered.

The commission noted that during cross-examination, the opposite party denied all allegations. The opposite party stated that complications arising due to a heart attack were explained to the complainant and that a consent form from the patient was taken and treatment given including certain injections for dissolution of heart vessel clot. The patient was kept under observation.

The opposite party denied that he had left the patient unattended and maintained that he was available throughout and that a life-saving injection ‘reteplase’ was administered. After this, there were signs of improvement as reflected in the ECG. However, the complainant was advised to take the patient to a better facility where an angiogram could be done. He also stated that all protocols and procedures were followed and that he tried to stabilise the patient and maintained that he issued a referral letter to the complainant.

The commission noted that the primary contention was the claim that ‘reteplase’ injection was not given on time. Taking all the evidence placed on record and arguments, it directed the opposite party to pay ₹6 lakh as compensation, ₹1 lakh for causing mental agony and ₹47,300 as medical expenses.

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Subscription Benefits Include

Today’s Paper

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day’s newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Unlimited Access

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

Personalised recommendations

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Faster pages

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

Dashboard

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

Briefing

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Support Quality Journalism.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper, crossword and print.



Source link