Verdict 1:Harihar Prasad Gautam of Budhanilkanth fell in the bathroom on January 3 and was taken to Om Hospital and Research Center in Chabahil by his family. After an examination in the emergency room, the doctor prescribed pain relievers and discharged him.

Gautam Hams went to the hospital after the pain did not subside for 4 days after taking the medicine. The hospital claimed that X-rays and CT-scans revealed a broken leg and delayed treatment. He was sent home on 'bedrest'. But he passed away exactly one month later on February 3. 

The Gautam family filed a case in the consumer court against Om Hospital with a demand of Rs 50 crore for financial, mental and physical loss. The court wrote to the Nepal Medical Council and asked an expert for its opinion. The council wrote to the National Trauma Center asking them to provide an orthopedic specialist. Based on the same letter, senior orthopedic specialist Dr. Rudra Marasini appeared in court. He proved the fact that there was a 'facture' and gave his opinion about the complications that may occur if it is not treated on time. 

The consumer court gave a verdict on 29th of June, in which the Gautam family should get compensation of 56 lakh 81 thousand rupees. In the verdict, the hospital has been asked to pay compensation of Rs.

Verdict 2:

Varsha Bhandari registered a case in the consumer court saying that Grandi City Hospital provided poor quality services. The hospital said that the amount of fat in the body is high and can be reduced with treatment, but the hospital did not heal even after two surgeries. Instead she got an infection. 

She filed a complaint with the Medical Council. The council formed a committee of five plastic surgeons to hear the complaint. According to an officer of the council, experts have reported that Bhandari's problem is a common complication during treatment and can be corrected through another surgery. 

Bhandari filed a case with a demand of 31.7 million rupees saying that she had caused loss by providing poor quality service. On June 5, the Consumer Court ordered that compensation of Rs 57 lakh 19 thousand should be received. It has been decided that 70 percent i.e. 44 lakh 3 thousand 300 doctors and 30 percent i.e. 17 lakh 15 thousand 700 should be paid by the hospital. 

Verdict 3:

Ganga Gautam of Morang Shanishchare registered a case in the consumer court claiming that Himal Hospital's negligence in the treatment of her 27-month-old daughter Praksha caused her death. She took her daughter, who was suffering from cold, to Himal Hospital in Kamalpokhari for treatment. Although the doctor treated her as a common cold, after a few days her health condition became complicated and she had to be put on a ventilator. However, Himal Hospital did not have this service. Doctor involved in the treatment. Jaydev Yadav's family claims that the girl died because she did not refer her to a hospital with ventilator facilities on time. The girl died in Metro Hospital during treatment. 

Initially, Ganga filed a complaint with the Medical Council for investigation and action. After investigating the incident, the council determined that the doctor involved in the treatment was negligent and decided to send a written request to the district attorney's office Kathmandu for the offense under subsection (1) of section 232 of the Civil Code 2074. The public prosecutor's office registered the case in the district court. In the meantime, the consumer court was formed, so the case moved here.  The

family filed a case with a compensation claim of 10 million 95 million, and the consumer court ruled that they should receive compensation of 1 million 45 million. It has been decided on June 12 that 70 percent will be paid by the hospital and 30 percent by the doctor. 

***

The Nepal Medical Association has protested against the consumer court ruling that the treatment was 'medically negligent' and ordered that the hospital and the doctors involved in the treatment should pay compensation in these three cases. On the call of the union, all services except for emergency services have been stopped across the country from Monday. The medical association has informed through a statement that it will continue on Tuesday as well.

Since the establishment of consumer court last March, 15 cases related to consumer rights have been registered. Out of them, 5 cases are related to healthcare. According to the judge of the court, Shobhakar Kharel, 3 cases have been decided. However, the full texts of all the three cases have not yet come out. Kharel informed that the remaining two cases, one against Kanti Children's Hospital and the other against Everest Hospital.

The president of the medical association, who was forced to close the service after discussions with various stakeholders for the past few weeks, did not reach a conclusion. Anilvikram Karki said. He said that the movement will be further strengthened by submitting the doctor's license to the Nepal Medical Council on Tuesday. "We have reached the decision to close the service as it is not possible to provide it now," he said, "All the doctors have supported it."

Association has demanded to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2075. It is wrong to put health services in the law like telephone, water and electricity. The court, which was formed based on the Consumer Protection Act, punished the doctors without a solid basis," he said. "There is complexity in medical science. Also called negative effect. Destiny also happens. There are also reactions that are not known to the doctor. They are trying to make a comment that the doctor killed the patient who went to the hospital by walking. In such a situation, which doctor can treat with confidence?'

President Karki says that the Consumer Protection Act should be amended as the medical council decides on disputes related to treatment. "If someone is negligent in the treatment, the medical council has to take action, the council has all the rights," said Karki, "as there is no knowledge about medicine, it does not seem practical to set a punishment." He claims that such a decision will increase the distance between doctors and patients.  Jyoti Baniyan, President of Consumer Interest Protection Forum, said that the protest by the

association is a mockery of the rule of law. "It is wrong for those who are considered to be carriers of social change to put pressure on themselves by saying that the law should not be applied to them, it should be applied only to others, not to respect the court's decision, to make prejudiced comments without looking at the decision, to be responsible for the goods or services they provide," he said. Baniyan says that stopping/strike in essential services is a serious crime. Even in such a crime, acting as if the law enforcers do not see it is not an indicator of good governance. "There can be no other crime against society and citizens," he said.

Medical Council Registrar Dr. According to Satish Dev, it is not legally and practically right for a consumer court to judge a sensitive service like health in the same list as other consumer goods. "The council is the only body that can determine whether the error or weakness during the treatment was deliberate or because of complications in the treatment process," he said. Manpower can be increased. It can be made more powerful.'

Registrar Dev informed that the council is also taking initiatives to address the current problem. Since healthcare is a completely technical matter, the council should look at it first. It would be fine if the council decides what kind of case will be heard by which court," he said. This is often the case in other countries as well. However, if the council goes directly to the case without looking, the relationship between the doctor and the patient will be doubted. It does not do any good. The comment that the

medical council is not included in the verdict of the case is wrong, said Banian, president of Consumer Interest Protection Forum. "The consumer court has decided on the basis of the written opinion and letter of the expert doctor sent by the medical council while making the three judgments under discussion," he said, "It is 100 percent false that the council is not involved in these cases." In that case, the council has requested the presence of experts on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the court does not allow orthopedics to appear, we ask the expert not to appear. However, that is not a representation of the council. Because that person has his personal opinion, the legal representation of the council cannot be considered,' he said, 'Our opinion is that the legal representation of the council should be and the legal opinion of the council should be considered official.' 

Medical Council member Dr. According to Kalusingh Khatri, the decision made by the consumer court in the first two of the three cases was completely wrong according to the jurisprudence of health care. "There is nothing wrong with the doctor in the first two cases. It is a byproduct of the complications that come with treatment. If millions of compensation is fixed in such a matter, why would anyone adopt the medical profession?', he said, 'There was a problem in treatment in the case of the Third Himal Hospital. The compensation was fixed. But that was too much. How can a doctor who earns 50,000 pay millions? This should not be done unjustly.

Ministry of Health and Population spokesperson Dr. Prakash Budhatho says that the health institution should run regularly and everyone should prepare the environment for that. Budhathoki said, "The matter now belongs to the Ministry of Industry. We are coordinating." Dr. Dr. Budhathoki argues. The ministry did not speak against the court. There may be a defamation case tomorrow. But a grocery store and a health institution are not the same," he said. Jitendra Basnet, Joint Secretary and Spokesperson of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply, said that there is no further information as this matter is under court proceedings.