(- . . , ) :
1) , , 1986 11 12 . . . No Significant Abnormality is Detected . Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis .
2) , . 20-01-2016 : . . . 700/- . 2 . 20-01-2016 1.30 . . 2 No Significant Abnormality is Detected . . 20-01-2016 . . .. . . . . . 21-01-2016 , . . Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis . / . .. , . , . / . . . . . 700/- , .2,00,000/- . 1,00,000/- . 10,000/- . 3,10,700/- 12 .
3) (6) . , , , , , . , . 20-08-2016 . .
4) . 1 2 . . 1 2 , . 1 . . . : . . 1 25 . 25 . . 1 . .700/- . . 20-01-2016 . . 1 . . 2 . 1 15 . . 1 . . 2 ? ? , . 2 . . 2 No Significant Abnormality is Detected . . .. . . . . . . 21-01-2016 . Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis . (Rays) (Reflect) . (Litarature) . 71% 97% . . . . 20-01-2016 . .. . . 10,00,000/- . . . . . , .
5) . 1 2 , . . .
6) , , , . -. .
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
7) . 1 - . 20-01-2016 : . . . . 1 . 700/- . 1 . 2 . , . , 1986 2 (1) . , . 1 .
8) . 2 - . 20-01-2016 : . . . . . 1 . 700/- . 1 . 2 . 20-02-2016 1.30 . . 2 . 2 No significant Abnormality is detetced . .
9) . .. . 21-01-2016 . . Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis Appendix . .. . . 10) , . : . . 1 25 . .700/- . . 20-01-2016 . . . 2 . 1 . . 2 No significant abnormality is detected . . . 2 . . 21-01-2016 . Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis Recent . Appendix . literature , Rays Reflect , 71% 97% . , . , . , . , . 10,00,000/- . 11) . 20-01-2016 .21-01-2016 . . 20-01-2016 No significant abnormality is detected 21-01-2016 Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis . , (Medical Literature) , (1) Diagnostic accurancy of ultrasonography in acute appendicitis. Result :- Out of 60 patients whose USG of right lower quadrant was performed, 30 patients were correctly diagnosed as having acute appendicitis on USG out of 34 finally diagnosed cases based on histopathology. Similarly we picked 12 normal appendices out of 26 non-appendicitis patients. The showed that US scan has sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 92 %, positive predictive value of 94%, negative predictive value of 86%, and overall accuracy of 90%. The most accurate appendiceal finding for appendicitis was a diameter of 7 mm or larger followed by non-compressibility of inflamed appendix. - Conclusion: Ultrasonography has high accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis and reduces negative appendectomies. Greater that 6-mm diameter of the appendix under compression is the most accurate USG finding with high positive predictive value for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients: review .of the literature Results: The gold standard for the diagnosis of appendicitis still remains pathologic confirmation after appendectomy. In the published literature, graded-compression. Ultrasound has shown an extremely valuable diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (sensitivity range from 44% to 100%; specificity range from 47% to 99%). This is due to many reasons including lack of operator skill,increased gas content,obesity, anatomic variants, and limitations to explore patients with previous laparotomies. :- Conclusions Graded-compression Ultrasound still remains our first-line method in patients referred with clinically suspected acute appendicitis; nevesrtheless,due to variable diagnostic accuracy, individual skill is requested not only to perform a successful exam, but also in order to triage those equivocal cases that, subsequently, will have to undergo assessment by means of Computed Tomography. Medical Literature . .
1 ) Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No.3541/2002 Martin F.DSoiza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq
2) 2016 (1) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 64 National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Fourm, New Delhi Ram Chandra Rai Vs Dr. Md. Zaheer . 21-01-20156 , . 20-01-2016 , Recent Appendicular Perforation With Peritonitis Recent . (Medical Litarature) , . (Rays) Reflect 71% 97 % . , . 12) . 20-01-2016 . 21-04-2016 . . 21-01-2016 . . . 20-01-2016 Ultrasound Observation , . . 21-01-2016 Ultrasound (Expert Opinion) . . Expert Opinion . 13) . . 2009(3)ALL MR ( JOURNAL) 60 Consumser Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State Shri Andip Vinayak Aher Vs Dr. RukminiManohar Karad Consumer Protection Act (1986).S.2 Consumer complaint Medical negligence Burden is on complainant to prove that the opp. party doctor was guilty of medical negligence and medical negligence of the doctor has got to be proved by adducing expert evidence. 14) , , . , . , . , . , .
1) .
2) .
3) . [HON'BLE MRS. Savita P. Bhosale] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Rupali D. Ghatage] MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Manisha S.Kulkarni] MEMBER
Comments