Kirti Verma vs Manoj Rambhau Gawande

THE Complainant Kirti P. Verma, delivered a male child around 11.20 p.m. on 9.8.2005. The Complainant noticed fever in her new born child on 10.8.2005 which was treated by a Pediatrician, Dr. Manoj Gawande, OP -1. It was alleged that the infant was treated with heavy doses of higher antibiotics. The child was hospitalized and OP -1 informed that the child will remain mentally challenged. The child developed swelling in the right hand at the point of injection. There was pain and change in colour. It was shown to OP -1 on 12.8.2005, but unfortunately, the child died. Hence, it was a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP -1 for not treating new born properly. Therefore, complainants Kirti Verma and Prakash Verma approached the District Forum, Akola, Maharashtra. The District Forum allowed the complaint and held OP -1 liable for negligence and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, OP -1 preferred an appeal A/09/85 while the Complainants preferred an appeal A/10/86 for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Complainant approached this Commission through Revision Petition. We have heard the Complainant Smt. Kirti P. Verma present in -person. She argued that the higher antibiotic dosages and injections were given to the new born child of one day old, on the OPD basis. The OP -1 should have admitted the baby in the hospital and given the treatment. She further submitted that the medicines were very expensive, the OP -1 tried to extract money from the Complainant. Hence, it was an unfair trade practice also. The Counsel for OPs denied all the allegations and further argued due to severe bacterial infections, the infant had fever, accordingly, the treatment was given with absolute care. The antibiotic injections were administered as per drug protocol, not in high doses.

WE have perused the medical records on the file and the prescriptions. It is clear that, the new born had mild fever, hence the OP -Dr. Manoj Gawande started injection Cifazox -250 mg and injection Clavom -150 mg for 2 days. Few other medicines which were a routine course of treatment for the new born baby also started. The important blood investigations of the baby showed calcium level 7.5 mg hypocalamia, C - reactive protein (CRP) test was positive. Thus, it indicates the new born baby has severe infection, hence, fever. Therefore, treatment with higher antibiotics is essential. We are of opinion that the OP -1 treated as per the standard of practice; there is no deviation or any negligence. Regarding the swelling of limb and at injected side, it may be due to Superficial Thrombophlebitis, a known complication and treatable. The Complainant has produced some medical literature on Pharmaco therapy of shock, about drugs like Seftizoxime and Cefizox injection. We don''t find it supports the complainant''s view.

THE expert opinion available on file, given by the Committee headed by Civil Surgeon and Professor of Government College clarified that the treatment was proper and the injections were in proper dosage. The case paper of Gawande Maternity Hospital clearly shows that there was Septicemia with shock to the baby. The OP -1 is a qualified Paediatrician and treated the patient with reasonable care and caution. We do not find any negligence. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab, : III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) : 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) : VI (2005) SLT 1 : 111 (2005) CCR 9 (SC) : (2005) 6 SCC 1, case, in conclusion, observed that: (2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this revision, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.