Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim for compensation – However, the State Commission and the National Commission set aside the order exonerating the respondents of all the charges of misconduct/negligence – Correctness:
Held: While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum – Both the State Commission and the National Commission ought to have examined the evidence in totality, instead, they mechanically and exclusively relied upon the Medical Council report and reiterated its findings without any reference to the evidence of the doctor – Appellate forum was tasked with the duty of undertaking a more thorough examination of the evidence on record, which they failed – Specific findings made by the District forum regarding lapses in duty of care by respondent No.1 vis-a-vis both pre-operative and post-operative standards for conducting a traumatic cataract surgery – Through the expert evidence of the doctor, a nexus was established between the lapses in post-operative care and the development of loss of vision after the operation, which remained uncontroverted – Holding of the District forum is strengthened not only by the report of the Medical Council but also by the admission of the respondent No. 1 itself that management and rehabilitation of traumatic cataract for a child is very difficult, unpredictable, and prone to complications – Furthermore, in cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery, thus, the finding of the District forum that there was a deficiency in the medical services provided by the respondents to the complainant’s son affirmed – Order of the State Commission and the National Commission set aside. [Paras 12-16]
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.