Back
2009(6) Supreme 535
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal — Appellant
versus
Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002
Decided on : 11-09-2009
Expert Opinion – The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion – The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence – The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person-Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled – The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court’s knowledge – Thus cases where science involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, central role of expert cannot be disputed. (Paras 11)
Expert Opinion – Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts –Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. (Para 13)
Facts of the Case :
1. Appellant/complainant diagnosed as a patient of “Dorsol Cord Compression D4-D6 Pott’s spine” was operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6 by Respondent.2. Operation remained unsuccessful and appellant had to undergo two operations thereafter but still left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of control over his Bladder movement. Complaint alleging medical negligence was dismissed by National Commission.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly appellant had filed all records of treatment before Commission. The Assistant Registrar, due to oversight, did not send the original records and X-Ray films to Expert .Due to the non-availability o vital and important information, expert was handicapped in giving his opinion on the basis of which the order of the Commission was to be passed. Apart from that appellant had also filed an application before Commission bringing to the notice of Commission the lack of care shown by the Assistant Registrar, who had failed to forward records of the treatment to the expert, and had requested to send the records for reconsideration. This application was rejected by Commission holding that the reconsideration of the expert opinion at this stage was not necessary. Held appellant should not suffer for the negligence of the Assistant Registrar and also when Commission had itself stated in its judgment that supply of material to expert could have enabled him to give a more complete report. Principles of Natural Justice require that a fair opportunity should be given to the complainant to prove his claim based on the report of the expert- Since that opportunity was denied to the appellant, the impugned order passed by National Commission was held unsustainable-Impugned order set aside. The Registrar of the Commission directed to forward all records of treatment filed by the appellant before the Commission to Dr. A. K. Singh, Neurologist, working at Fortis Hospital, Noida, for his expert opinion. After receipt of the expert opinion, Commission requested to pass fresh order in accordance with law.Appeal allowed
Result : Appeal allowed
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
Principles of Natural Justice necessitate that a fair opportunity be given to the complainant to prove his claim based on the expert report. The denial of such an opportunity renders the order unsustainable (!) (!) .
The case involves medical negligence related to a surgical procedure for spinal decompression. The appellant contended that the operation was unsuccessful, leaving him handicapped, and alleged negligence on the part of the medical practitioners (!) (!) .
The original treatment records and X-ray films were not properly forwarded to the expert due to oversight by the Assistant Registrar, which handicapped the expert’s ability to form a complete opinion (!) (!) (!) .
The expert’s opinion was limited because vital and important documents, including original radiological images and detailed operative findings, were not made available. This impacted the reliability of the expert’s assessment (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant filed an application requesting the treatment records be forwarded to the expert for reconsideration, which was rejected by the commission on the grounds that further expert opinion was unnecessary at that stage. However, this rejection was found to be unjustified because the absence of complete records prevented the expert from forming a proper opinion (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that expert opinions are crucial in highly specialized medical cases, and their value depends on the credibility of the expert and the relevance of the facts and data on which the opinion is based (!) (!) (!) .
The failure to provide the expert with all relevant records violated the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to substantiate his case (!) (!) .
The court directed that the treatment records be forwarded to a different qualified expert for an opinion, and that the case be reconsidered after receipt of this opinion, ensuring the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and proper evaluation of evidence (!) (!) .
The order passed by the original commission was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after proper expert evaluation, with the appellant not being liable for the negligence of the administrative staff (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal analysis.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996 dated 23.5.2002. By the impugned order National Consumer Commission has rejected the petition filed by the complainant.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The appellant/complainant was a teacher by profession. He was aged about 60 years when he was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of progressive weakness of both his lower limbs. As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), for Medical check-up. On the same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of “Dorsol Cord Compression D4-D6 Pott’s spine” which in simple terms means that T.B. infection has spread till his vertebra. On the same day he was advised to get operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6. The operation was performed by Dr. Atul Sahay (Respondent No.2) on 25.11.1995. It is asserted, that, after the operation, the condition of the appellant deteriorated further and it was revealed from the MRI scan that the operation was not successful as it was not done at the right level. It is also stated that the case summary and the MRI reports suggest that the problem was aggravated and there was need for another operation. Dr.I.N.Vajpayee (respondent no.3) was consulted on 12.12.1995 and he performed the operation on the same day. Even after the second operation the infection was not cured and this forced him to refer his case to Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, New Delhi (VIMHANS) for further treatment. It is further stated, that, the third operation was preformed and it provided the appellant some relief, but left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of control over his Bladder movement.
3. COMPLAINT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION: The appellant, being impaired by the treatment, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as “National Commission”) alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3.
The claim of the appellant before the National Commission was as under :
i) That the correct method of operating his infection was the Antero-Lateral Decompression (ALD) and not Laminectomy.
ii) That the complainant/appellant contends that he was kept only for one week on the Anti-Tubercular drugs before the surgery which is a much shorter duration than the accepted medical practice.
iii) That there was no requirement of immediate surgery.
iv) That the respondent no.2, who was a Neurosurgeon did not consult the Orthopedic surgeon, even though he was not capable to handle the case of complainant/appellant without consulting Orthopedic surgeon.
Hence, it was claimed that there is gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in treating the complainant/appellant, and therefore, respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant.
4. NATIONAL COMMISSION JUDGMENT: After considering the case presented by the appellant and the respondents and looking through the affidavits filed by the parties, the National Commission has come to the conclusion that medical negligence is not proved against the respondents. The Commission has concluded:
“Medical negligence is when a doctor did something which he ought not to have done or did not do what he ought to have done. The doctors were qualified professionals. They did whatever was required to be done of Neuro-Surgeons. In fact, we find the complainant’s deficient, who neither appeared for cross examination nor produced any literature in support of this case to be of any assistance to this Commission.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the decision, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
