NAME: - ATREYA GAN CHAUDHURI

DIVISION:- D

PRN: - 17010223078

SUBJECT:- LAW OF TORTS

CASE:- “ NIZAM’S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VS PRASANTH S.DHANAKA & ORS “

CASE ANALYSIS
FACTS :-

 According to the complainant , Mr.Dhanaka he went to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences

in September 1990 for a check up as he was suffering from on and off fever for a year.
 On examination it was noticed that he had a large mass in his left hemithorax
 A surgery was performed and the tumour was removed. But, post the surgery he became a
paraplegic – paralysis of the lower limbs of the body. Then he moved the Commission which
awarded only Rs.15.5 lakh
 The complainant’s main charge was that the tumour being a neurogenic one, the surgery
should have been handled by a neurosurgeon as due to the lack of proper advice he ended
up becoming paraplegic.
 Post being awarded Rs.15.5 lakh by the National Consumer’s Disputes Redressal Commission
, he appealed in the higher courts and was finally awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 crore for
medical negligence by the Supreme Court , the bench being Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice H.S.
Bedi, Justice G.S.Singhvi.

ISSUES:-
The main issues that were highlighted in the following case was:-

 The lack of proper clarity and precaution on part of the hospital in response to the medical
issue faced by the plaintiff.
 The lack of attention from a specialist in an delicate issue such as a tumour which is seen
when the neurosurgeon is not consulted while removing the tumour which left the plaintiff
paralyzed below the waist
 Lack of Civil Liability on the part of the doctors.
 Benefit of Doubt to the doctors in cases of medical negligence makes the entire process
lengthy and unfair.
2. RULES: -

 We have too keep in view the broad parameters followed by us in an earlier case of medical
negligence (Original Petition No.292 of 1994, Harjot Ahluwalia (Minor) vs. Spring Meadows
Hospital & Anr.) { II (1997) CPJ 98 (NC)} which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India { Civil Appeal No.7708 of 1997 with Civil Appeal No.7858 of 1997 { I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC)}

 We find that the consent given by the complainant for the excision biopsy cannot, by
inference, be taken as an implied consent for a surgery (save in exceptional cases), as held
by this Court in Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 1.

 The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam case (1957) 2 All ER 118
(QBD)holds good in its applicability in India.

3. ANALYSIS :-

 The plaintiff Prasant S. Dhanaka had gone to NIMS for the purpose of getting a check up
done to ensure that his health was alright, where on subsequent scans a large mass was
observed on his left hemithorax but despite continuous dwelling upon the reports and
additional tests not resulting in something substantial , the hospital went ahead with the
operation which shows lack of reasonable precaution and clarity i.e. the hospital authorities
should have awaited conclusive evidence prior to starting the operation.
 Lack of proper specialisation in medical treatment which can lead to grievous hurt to the
patient is considered medical negligence which is exhibited in this case by the hospital when
it does not take any opinion from the neurosurgeon before taking out the tumour leading to
repercussions.
 Lack of clarity on part of the doctors who went ahead with the operation despite lacking the
necessary conclusive evidence which is needed in order to go ahead with the operation.
 Repeated attempts at concealing evidence which is clear from the number of times the
plaintiff had to approach and the delay caused while he tried to obtain his records to get
more medical advice on his situation.
 CASES WHICH CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS CASE:-
Padam Chandra Singh and Ors. Vs Dr. P.B.Desai and Ors. Suit No.1101 of 1989 Bombay High
Court.

CONCLUSION:-

It can be concluded that the penalty awarded to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences is fair and
this judgement is a landmark judgement in the history of medical negligence cases in Indian Law.
The penalty was awarded keeping in mind the amount of time and future prospects of the
plaintiff that were wasted, the legal charges that were incurred and the grievous bodily harm
suffered by him. This sort of a judgement is of exemplary nature which is an example of the
consequences that negligent actions can face and negligence renders all other impending
defences void.