III (2011) CPJ 27 (NC)
.முதுகுதண்டில் ஏற்படும் பிரச்சனைகளை சரிசெய்ய Neuro Surgeon மட்டுமே அறுவை சிகிச்சை பண்ண வேண்டுமா?
.இந்த புகாரில் மேற்படி கேள்விக்கான பதிலை All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-யிடம் கேட்டதில், இந்த பிரச்சனைக்கு எழும்பு முறிவு அறுவை சிகிச்சை நிபுணரும் அறுவை சிகிச்சை செய்யலாம் என கூறியுள்ளார்கள். அதன் அடிப்படையில் இந்த ஆணை அமைந்துள்ளது.
.
The complainant’s wife was suffering from Cauda Equina syndrome which, according to the appellant, “could only be treated and operated by a neuro surgeon and not by an orthopaedic surgeon. Hence, it amounts to medical negligene.
.
For a reference made to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi have replied on 24.12.2010 stating that “the Medical Board was of the opinion that both the Orthopaedics Surgeon and the Neuro Surgeon are competent to perform the envisaged surgery”.
.
Hence, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Concludes,
.முதுகுதண்டில் ஏற்படும் பிரச்சனைகளை சரிசெய்ய Neuro Surgeon மட்டுமே அறுவை சிகிச்சை பண்ண வேண்டுமா?
.இந்த புகாரில் மேற்படி கேள்விக்கான பதிலை All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-யிடம் கேட்டதில், இந்த பிரச்சனைக்கு எழும்பு முறிவு அறுவை சிகிச்சை நிபுணரும் அறுவை சிகிச்சை செய்யலாம் என கூறியுள்ளார்கள். அதன் அடிப்படையில் இந்த ஆணை அமைந்துள்ளது.
.
The complainant’s wife was suffering from Cauda Equina syndrome which, according to the appellant, “could only be treated and operated by a neuro surgeon and not by an orthopaedic surgeon. Hence, it amounts to medical negligene.
.
For a reference made to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi have replied on 24.12.2010 stating that “the Medical Board was of the opinion that both the Orthopaedics Surgeon and the Neuro Surgeon are competent to perform the envisaged surgery”.
.
Hence, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Concludes,
“(i) the State Commission was right in concluding that the complainant had failed to establish that there was any medical negligence in the treatment provided by the respondents;
(ii) the complainant has equally failed to produce any conclusive material or evidence before this Commission in support of the main ground for appeal viz. that this surgery could have been performed only by a neuro surgeon;
(iii) the opinion of the independent expert (All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi), sought at the express request of the appellant/Complainant, leaves no room for doubt that, in this case, the surgery could be performed either by an orthopaedic surgeon or by a neuro surgeon. Therefore, the fact that it was actually performed by an orthopaedic surgeon does not per se cons-titutes medical negligence.”
.
Consequently, the appeal fails for want of merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.
(ii) the complainant has equally failed to produce any conclusive material or evidence before this Commission in support of the main ground for appeal viz. that this surgery could have been performed only by a neuro surgeon;
(iii) the opinion of the independent expert (All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi), sought at the express request of the appellant/Complainant, leaves no room for doubt that, in this case, the surgery could be performed either by an orthopaedic surgeon or by a neuro surgeon. Therefore, the fact that it was actually performed by an orthopaedic surgeon does not per se cons-titutes medical negligence.”
.
Consequently, the appeal fails for want of merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment