A medical negligence case against Dr. Bhaskar P. Shah, the director of Mumbai’s Ashirwad Heart Hospital, has been remanded by the Bombay High Court to the trial court in Vikhroli. This ruling follows the High Court’s discovery that the trial court’s earlier verdict, which had cleared Dr. Shah, did not sufficiently consider important evidence and testimony. The case was started by gynecologist Dr. Herat Ramsinh Parmar and is about her father Ramsinh Umedsinh Parmar’s 1993 passing.
On March 24, 1993, Ramsinh Parmar—a diabetic and hypertensive—was brought to Ashirwad Heart Hospital following the onset of symptoms indicative of a transient ischemic attack (TIA). Among other things, Dr. Parmar noticed that her father was sweating and had trouble staying balanced. The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) was advised for Ramsinh to be admitted after the ailment was diagnosed by cardiologist Dr. Jitesh Desai and neurologist Dr. V G Panchal. He was given medical attention, but his condition deteriorated, and on March 26, 1993, he passed away.
The Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court cleared Dr. Shah of the negligence accusations during the initial trial. The trial court noted that the patient had been evaluated and treated by several physicians, including Dr. Shah, and that no overt proof of malpractice had been discovered. The court observed that Ramsinh Parmar had a history of health problems and that the care he received was in line with accepted medical procedures.
But Dr. Parmar’s attorney, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, contended that the trial court overlooked important evidence, including as testimony and medical records. He called attention to a number of acts of omission, including giving the patient potentially dangerous medications, neglecting the patient’s history of stroke, and failing to link the patient to a heart monitor.
Dr. Shah’s attorney, on the other hand, emphasized the patient’s pre-existing ailments and the thorough care given in support of the trial court’s decision. The defense contended that the trial court erred in drawing a distinction between criminal and civil culpability and that treatment outcomes disappointment does not amount to criminal negligence.
The appeal’s judge, Justice SM Modak, thought Dr. Parmar’s arguments had some substance. He pointed out that the trial court’s decision lacked a thorough analysis of the material at hand, especially Dr. Parmar’s documentary evidence and the statements of the participating physicians. Justice Modak underlined that a comprehensive assessment is necessary to guarantee a fair result.
The trial court was directed to begin the hearings from the outset by the High Court, which remanded the case to it. The trial court was given a deadline of 15 days for each party to submit their case and 7 days for reply in order to conclude the arguments. It is then anticipated that the trial court would issue its ruling as soon as possible.
On July 22, 2024, both parties are required to appear before the trial court. In order to expedite the proceedings, the High Court has further directed the Registrar to make certain that all pertinent records are promptly sent to the trial court.
SOURCE
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
