Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. , AIR 1969 SCR (1) 206

Facts of the Case

On 6 May 1953, Ananda who is the son of Respondent 1 got his leg hurt on the beach. Ananda age was about 20 years at that time. The accident happened on the sea beach at Palshet village which is located in Ratnagiri district. Due to the accident, Ananda’s left leg’s femur was fractured. The distance between the beach and the house of Ananda and his mother was around 23 km, so it took some time to bring the cot and to take Ananda to his house.

A local physician named Dr. Risbud was called and came around 8:30 p.m. and his only treatment he gave to the boy was to tie wooden planks on the boy’s leg to immobilize it and give him rest. On the next day, he visited the boy to check his condition and found him in good condition but he advised to go to Poona (now Pune) for better treatment. On May 8, Dr. Risbud substituted the wooden planks with Mae Intyres splints.

After that, around 1 p.m. a taxi was called in which Ananda sits in a reclining position and respondents and Dr. Risbud leave for Pune. They reached on 9 May 1953 after travelling for 200 miles at about 11:30 a.m. Respondent 1 reached Pune from Dhond (place where respondent 1 was practicing as a medical practitioner) by that time. The boy injured leg was examined in the Tarachand hospital and it was found that the boy had an overlapping fracture of the femur and for that pin -traction is required. Afterwards, the boy was shifted to appellant’s hospital. At that time the appellant was not there, so the boy was admitted to the hospital at 2:15 p.m. by his assistant Dr. Irani. After some time the appellant arrived and after doing preliminary examination of Ananda, he directed his assistant to give one injection of 1/8^th grain of morphia and one injection of 1/200^th grain of Hyoscine H.B. at an hour’s interval. But Dr. Irani gave only one injection. Thereafter Ananda was removed to X-ray room where two X-ray photos were taken on the ground floor and on the upper floor; the operation took place where the plaster splints were put in the injured leg. The boy was kept in operation theatre more than an hour and afterwards shifts to the assigned room at 5:30 p.m.

Respondent 1 left for Dhond after the doctor gave assurance that the boy will come out of the effect of morphia around 7 p.m. Respondent 2, who remain stayed in the room with Ananda notice at 6:30 p.m. that Ananda was facing difficulty in breathing and was having cough.

Dr. Irani called the appellant immediately and on the finding that the boy’s condition is not good, then the appellant started the emergency treatment which continues till 9 p.m. when the boy expired. The appellant tell the respondent that the cause of death of the boy was due to fat embolism.

Issues

• Whether the doctor has done negligence while performing his duty, i.e. during operation?

Arguments from Respondent

The respondent argues that the appellant did not perform essential preliminary examinations of the body and was given a morphia injection while his treatment. The appellant uses manual traction to put plaster and to do so excessive use of force was used with the help of three men. Also, the manual traction is done under proper general anesthesia and not under morphia alone. This rough treatment of appellant leads to cause a condition of embolism or shock and thus prove dangerous for patient.

Arguments from Appellant

The appellant denied the allegation by stating that the boy was only under the analgesic effect due to the morphia injection when the X-ray and operation took place, the boy was cooperating satisfactory in all due process. General anesthesia was not given because of the history and condition of patient. The allegation of using excessive force for the purpose of manual traction is false and mischievous. This method was use to ameliorate the condition of the patient.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court held that the judgement and opinion given by the High Court and Trial Court were all correct and no wrong interpretation was made. The Supreme Court said that the lower courts (High Court and Trial Court), were right in holding that the appellant is guilty of negligence while treating the patient and also committed a wrongful act as the appellant did not use anesthesia to reduce the fracture instead of immobilizing with light traction. If only immobilization has done and reduction of fracture is postponed, then respondent would not leave for Dhond. Appellant’s claim of satisfactory cooperation by patient throughout the treatment could not be true as the patient was unconscious due to the morphia injection. Also the method of reduction of fracture by excessive force was wrong as the procedure is done when the anesthesia is given. The patient cause of death was shock because of appellant’s treatment. So the appellant is guilty of negligence and wrongful act and therefore the appellant has to pay for the damages.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org

This article is written by Akshat Sharma of Department of Law, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin