AICL Cases 2020

By taking cognizance of few landmark judgments of Supreme Court in medical negligence cases, Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the case against the hospital.  

Patient Versus Orthopedic Hospital & Trauma Hospital, Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur.
A patient namely Amar Singh Meena had approached Balaji hospital which is a renowned hospital of Jaipur, on 07-06-2018 after sustaining injury on his right leg. Fracture was diagnosed, and treatment was given for the same. However, after some days, swelling was noticed along with a foul smell that started oozing out from the injured leg. Thus the patient went to SMS hospital, Jaipur where it was revealed that there is no fracture. Further, the patient was told that if there was any delay in the treatment, his leg could have been amputated. Being aggrieved by this, he filed this case against the hospital and United India Insurance before Jaipur Permanent Lok Adalat and sought compensation to the tune of Rs 375000/-.
Upon receiving the summon, the concerned doctor sought help from AICL. Apex team appointed a good knowledgeable counsel, who strongly defended the case in the court by replying that plaster cast was applied as per the Medical Science & Standard Protocol after getting the consent of the patient himself. In follow-up visit, the patient complained of swelling and blisters on the injured leg. It seemed that the patient had broken the plaster since it was very loose. Patient party revealed an allergy to cement hence plaster slab was immediately removed. After that, he lost to follow-up, and went to another hospital. No doctor at SMS Hospital has pointed out any negligence on the part of the respondent doctor or hospital.
After hearing the both parties, and taking references of a few landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in medical negligence cases alas Dr. S.K.Jhunjhunwala Vs. Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar, CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao & Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital, the court concluded that there is no negligence on the part of respondent hospital. Hence, dismissed the matter in favour of respondent hospital.

Patient developed VVF after 3 months of hysterectomy – No negligence on behalf of AICL members. 


This Revision Petition has been filed by one Hospital along doctor (both AICL member) against the Order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the State commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 1310/11, which allowed the Appeal and set aside the dismissal order of the District Forum Kaithal and held the Petitioners/Opposite Parties liable for medical negligence.
The complainant/patient visited the OP hospital with complaints of abdominal pain, some menstrual problem and retention of urine off and on for last 2-3 years. Where the AICL member gynecologist after examination diagnosed with stone in abdomen and suggested for removal of uterus via surgery and same was done on 24.09.2007.
The complainant alleged that despite continuous pain she was discharged after prescribing some medicines and follow ups. But She did not get any relief and suffered urinary problem and henceforth got admitted in Kindey Center Chandigarh, wherein, it was disclosed that the treating doctor conducting hysterectomy operation, negligently punctured the urinary bladder. The Complainant, alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
Contention of OPs:
The AICL members vehemently denied all the allegations in the written version and stated that hysterectomy was performed by under spinal anesthesia and Dense adhesions between uterine fibroid and urinary bladder were noted and it caused great difficulty to remove the uterus along with cervix. After the operation, it was duly informed to the patient party that in future patient might suffer urinary problems. Post-operatively after few procedure, urinary flows easily started.
Upon follow up Dr. Mittal noticed that the patient was suffering from Vesico-Vaginal Fistula (VVF) and same was disclosed to the patient and her attendants. She was advised periodic routine checkup.
The District Forum dismissed the Complaint for want of merit.
Appeal to State Commission:
Aggreieved by the order complainant filed First appeal before state commission and same was allowed directing OPs to pay Rs. 5,22,000/-.
Revision Petition:
A Revision Petition was filed by AICL counsel on behalf of the members, whereby the learned national commission held that we do not find negligence or deficiency in service from the Opposite Parties during the treatment of the patient. The hysterectomy was performed as per the standard procedure and we do not find any negligence or procedural lapse. After the hysterectomy, the patient was monitored for urine output. Post-operative caseation of urine output was promptly attended with the help of Dr. A. K. Mittal – the qualified Urologist. The patient developed VVF after 3 months of hysterectomy wherein we do not find any nexus between VVF and the hysterectomy performed. The Order of the State Commission is hereby set aside and the Revision Petition is allowed.