![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Thursday, Dec 06, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Karnataka |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Karnataka
-
Hubli-Dharwad
Surgery cost Rs. 27,500 for the patient Doctor to pay Rs. 77,500 DHARWAD: The Dharwad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has ordered a local doctor to pay a compensation of Rs. 77,500 to a patient for “medical negligence”. The complainant, Janglisab M. Balanawar of Hubli, had approached S.G. Naregal, an orthopaedic surgeon, for treating acute pain in his lower back in 2002. On the doctor’s advice, he underwent a surgery, for which he was charged Rs. 27,500. However, as there was no improvement in his condition he finally approached neurosurgeon S.P. Baligar, who, after diagnosis, advised him to undergo another surgery. Consequently, Mr. Balanawar was operated on by Dr. Baligar, after which he was relieved of the pain. Mr. Balanawar had then approached the District Consumer Forum seeking relief from Dr. Naregal. After hearing the case, District Consumer Forum president K.M. Thammaiah found that Dr. Naregal was guilty of medical negligence and ordered him to refund Rs. 27,500 which he received from the complainant as medical bill for the surgery and pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant. The forum observed that although the ailment of the patient was related to a neurological condition, instead of referring the case to a neurologist, the doctor, an orthopaedic surgeon, had conducted the surgery. The forum has ordered the doctor to pay the compensation amount within four weeks, failing which the amount would carry an interest of eight per cent per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation. The forum has also ordered the doctor to pay Rs. 1,000 towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The forum, however, has rejected the plea of the complainant that he should be compensated for the loss of his job in a private firm. It said the complainant had not filed any documents to prove that he was employed in a private firm earlier.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|