Medical Negligence: Deficiency of service – Claim for compensation – Complainant’s wife, government school teacher diagnosed with gall bladder stones – Respondent no. 1-laparoscopic surgeon at respondent no. 2-hospital performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for removal of the gall bladder stones – After surgery, the patient became very serious – On request, the respondent no. 1 shifted the patient to respondent no. 4-hospital, referring her to respondent no. 3-doctor – Respondent no. 3 advised against the immediate surgical intervention owing to the patient’s multiple ailments – However, patients condition became critical and an emergency laparotomy was performed – Patient’s condition became critical and died due to multi organ failure – Consumer complaint – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-SCDRC found respondent nos. 1 and 2 negligent and directed them to pay compensation to the complainant, however, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were exonerated – Ethics committee of the MCI also found respondent no. 1 medically negligent and issued a strict warning – However, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-NCDRC found no negligence on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 2 – On appeal, held: There were sufficient indicators of large bowel perforation after the operation, to a diligent professional to detect and take immediate steps for restitution – NCDRC instead of examining the material placed on record, rejected the plea of res ipsa loquitur and held that it was impermissible to assume that any sensible professional would intentionally commit an act which would result in an injury to the patient – In these proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise – NCDRC erred in reversing the findings of the SCDRC and not adverting to the evidence on record including the report of MCI – Thus, the case of medical negligence made out against the respondent no. 1 and 2 – Complainants entitled to compensation of Rs 25 lakhs with interest @6% per annum, on the ground of deficiency of service – Order exonerating respondent nos. 3 and 4 upheld.
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and Ors. v. Master Rishabh Sharma and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 501 : [2019] 16 SCR 1185; Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480 : [2010] 2 SCR 685; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1996) 2 SCC 634 : [1996] 2 SCR 881; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur & Anr. (2019) 2 SCC 282 : [2018] 12 SCR 868 – referred to.
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.