Held: It is not the case of the complainant that respondent no.2-doctor was negligent in performing the Neurosurgery – Thus, the entire case of the complainant was about lack of proper post-operative medical care – On this score, the allegation is that the patient should have been shifted to ICU instead of shifting him to a private room – The material available on the record demonstrates that as per the standard practice, all patients who show no signs of complications in the recovery room and have no post or pre-operative complications are sent to their rooms – The symptoms, which emerged after the deceased was discharged from the Operation Theatre, were not the symptoms, which typically precede a cardiac arrest – Since, the deceased did not have any known or identifiable heart ailments, it was impossible for the respondents to have prior knowledge that the patient may develop cardiac problem after few hours of the successful surgery – Also, materials placed before the Court show that patient was examined by doctors after his surgery and all required steps were taken – There is no evidence put forth by the complainant to establish that heart attack suffered by the patient had any connection with the operation in question or that it was on account of negligent post-operative care – Furthermore, affidavit of professor of neurosurgery in AIIMS and Senior Consultant in Neurology at respondent no.1-Hospital opined that the record did not show any abnormality at the operated site and the complications suffered by the patient were totally unrelated to the surgery conducted by respondent no.
2 – Therefore, the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part of Respondents in taking post-operative care and the findings in this regard recorded by the Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. [Paras 23,25,32]
Principle/Doctrine – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability of: Held: In so far as the applicability of principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, in the fact and circumstances of the case, it is to bear in mind that the principles get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made – For applying the principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ is present to establish the allegation of negligence – Strong incriminating circumstantial or documentary evidence is required for application of the doctrine – In the instant case, there was no mistake in diagnosis or a negligent diagnosis by respondent no. 2 – In the absence of the patient having any history of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiac problem, it is difficult to foresee a possible cardiac problem only because the patient had suffered pain in the neck region. [Para 31]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal and Others 2021 SCC online SC 1149; Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. [2009] 13 SCR 1 : (2009) 9 SCC 221: – relied on. Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq [2009] 3 SCR 273 : (2009) 3 SCC 1; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1: – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.