2021 Supreme(SC) 774

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre - Appellant
Versus
Asha Jaiswal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1658, 2322 of 2010
Decided on : 30-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical negligence – Simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not a proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional.
(2) Medical negligence – Doctors are expected to take reasonable care but none of professionals can assure that patient would overcome surgical procedure. No doctor can assure life to his patient but can only attempt to treat his patient to best of his ability.
(3) Medical negligence – Non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold Hospital negligent in any manner.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 {Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67} – Medical negligence – Cardiology – Death of patient – Patient was in critical condition when Doctor was consulted and surgery was thereafter performed within two days – Non-working of DSA machine and consequent delay in performing test cannot be said to be negligence on part of Doctor or the Hospital – DSA machine is a large, expensive and complicated machine which unfortunately developed certain technical problem at the time when patient had to be tested – Any machine can become non-functional because of innumerable factors beyond the human control – Operation theatres cannot be presumed to be available at all times – Non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold Hospital negligent in any manner – A medical professional has to upgrade himself with latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside country – Mere fact that Doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties – Experts in other fields have been consulted from time to time and treatment was modulated accordingly – In spite of treatment, if patient had not survived, Doctors cannot be blamed as even Doctors with best of their abilities cannot prevent inevitable. (Paras 18, 19 and 24)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 {Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67} – Medical negligence – Cardiology – Death of patient – Compensation of Rs. 14,18,491/- along with 9% interest awarded by National Commission – It is a case where patient was in serious condition impending gangrene even before admission to Hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration, if patient does not survive, fault cannot be fastened on doctors as a case of medical negligence – It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on bed side of patient throughout his stay in hospital which was being expected by complainant here – A doctor is expected to provide reasonable care which is not proved to be lacking in any manner in present case – Sole basis of finding of negligence against Hospital is of res ipsa loquitur – Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence – Complainant had led no evidence of experts to prove alleged medical negligence except their own affidavits – Experts could have proved if any of doctors in Hospital providing treatment to patient were deficient or negligent in service – Experts of different specialities and super-specialities of medicine were available to treat and guide course of treatment of patient – Doctors are expected to take reasonable care but none of professionals can assure that patient would overcome surgical procedure – Sole basis of finding appellants negligent was res ipsa loquitur which would not be applicable herein keeping in view treatment record produced by Hospital and/or Doctor – There was never a stage when patient was left unattended – Patient was in a critical condition and if he could not survive even after surgery, blame cannot be passed on to Hospital and Doctor who provided all possible treatment within their means and capacity – Family may not have coped with loss of their loved one, but Hospital and Doctor cannot be blamed as they provided requisite care at all given times – No doctor can assure life to his patient but can only attempt to treat his patient to best of his ability which was being done in present case as well – Order passed by Commission set aside and complaint dismissed – By virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was disbursed to complainant – aid amount ordered to be treated as ex gratia payment to complainant and not to be recovered back by either Hospital or Doctor. (Paras 26, 27, 35, 36, 37 and 38)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 06.01.2010 against the appellants i.e., Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre and Dr. C. Anand Somaya, directing to pay a sum of Rs. 14,18,491/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment.

Findings of Court:

Findings recorded by the Commission holding the Hospital and the Doctor guilty of medical negligence are not sustainable in law.

Result : Appeals allowed.