Nov.17: SETTLED IN COURT
Doc to compensate woman for botched-up abortion
Sima Kothiya got an abortion done by Dr. D.N. Patel. The next day she had severe pain in the abdomen. She was asked to continue the medicines prescribed. When she became critical the day after that, Dr. Patel told her it was a holiday at the clinic.
In a serious condition, Sima was admitted to hospital where the sonography revealed that the abortion had not been done properly. Moreover, an ectopic pregnancy (conception in the fallopian tubes) was revealed. She had to undergo another procedure costing Rs. 26,000. She wrote to the opposite party asking them to pay for these expenses but there was no response.
Distressed, Sima approached Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), Ahmedabad for help and a complaint was filed. Dr. Patel contended that there had been no carelessness on his part. The Forum observed in its 2010 order that the doctor had not got a sonography done either before or after the abortion which indicated negligence.
It directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,555 to Sima for medical expenses and Rs. 25,000 with 9% interest as compensation for mental and physical harassment and towards litigation costs. Dr. Patel appealed to the Gujarat State Commission against this verdict.
VerdictÂ
The State Commission upheld the Forum’s verdict but modified its order by reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,000.
Point of lawÂ
A doctor cannot deny negligence when he has endangered a patient’s life by not getting a required test done.
[Source: The order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, dated 15 June 2017 on Appeal no. 445/2011]
Firm gives Kadakia trust refund for shoddy work
The Kadakia Trust wanted to get all rare books and documents in its library digitized in order to facilitate research by Ph.D. students. Managing trustee Dr. K. Kadakia contacted Malav Shah of Nishi Cotfiber to do part of the digitization work. The trust paid him Rs. 1.5 lakh for the work.
When Dr. Kadakia received the digitization work he was shocked to find several errors. The agreed mumber of images had not been done and many images were repeated. Poor image quality, typographical errors, absence of index and several other deficiencies made the entire work substandard.
Dr. Kadakia wrote to Malav requesting him to rectify the mistakes. When he did not receive a response, a legal notice was sent. As there was no reply, Dr. Kadakia contacted CERS for help. Two more letters were sent to Malay’s company by CERS. It responded that there was no deficiency in service on its part. Thereafter, a complaint was filed in the District Forum.
VerdictÂ
The Forum ruled in favour of the complainant. It directed the opposite parity to pay the complainant Rs. 1.5 lakh with 9% interest, Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000 towards litigation costs.
Point of law
A firm that submits substandard work after charging a substantial fee cannot shirk its responsibility.
[Source: The order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad dated 4 May 2017 on Complaint no. 230/2016]
