Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Harnek Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Gurmit Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4126-4127 of 2022 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10782-10783 of 2020
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Medical negligence – Death of patient due to post-operational complications – Complaint dismissed by National Commission in appeal – In proceedings arising out of claim for compensation on the basis of medical negligence, opinion and findings of MCI regarding professional conduct of Doctor have great relevance – In proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, question of intention does not arise – SCDRC in its detailed decision considered oral and documentary evidence including medical journals and concluded that Respondents 1 and 2 acted negligently in performing operation – There was sufficient material indicative of large bowel perforation after laparoscopic operation – It may not have manifested immediately in normal course – However, there were sufficient indicators to a diligent professional, to detect and take immediate steps for restitution – Instead of examining material that was placed on record, NCDRC seemed satisfied with raising and rejecting plea of res ipsa loquitur and holding that it is impermissible to assume that any sensible professional would intentionally commit an act which would result in an injury to patient – Reference to MCI report would have been sufficient to come to right conclusion – Apart from facts that clearly emerge from report of MCI, there is sufficient evidence to reiterate same findings of deficiency – NCDRC has committed error in reversing findings of SCDRC and not adverting to evidence on record including report of MCI – Complainants have made out a case of medical negligence against Respondents 1 and 2 and are entitled to seek compensation on the ground of deficiency of service – Total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- with 6% interest awarded from date of SCDRC Order – Judgment of National Commission set aside. (Paras 27, 29, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 dismissing the appeal of complainant and allowing the appeal of doctor and the hospital by holding that no medical negligence was proved. Primary question is whether the complainant has established professional negligence on the part of Respondents as per the standards governing the duty to care of a medical practitioner. The SCDRC in its detailed decision considered the oral and documentary evidence including medical journals and concluded that Respondents 1 and 2 acted negligently in performing the operation. SCDRC also held that there is no evidence of negligence in so far as Respondents 3 and 4 are concerned.
Findings of Court:
Interest of justice would be subserved if Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay to complainants a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of SCDRC order as compensation. Respondents 1 and 2 will be entitled to adjust any amount already paid or deposited in favour of the complainants pending proceedings. The amount shall be deposited within a period of 6 months from today, failing which it shall carry an interest of 9% per annum.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1[hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’] dismissing the appeal of the complainant and allowing the appeal of the doctor and the hospital by holding that no medical negligence was proved. Having examined the evidence, medical records and the report of the ethics committee of the Medical Council of India2[hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’], we have concluded that a case of deficiency of service is made out against the doctor and the hospital, Respondents 1 and 2, herein for medical negligence. Allowing the appeal of the complainants, we have directed payment of compensation. We will first refer to the facts leading to this case.
Facts:
3. Facts as stated in the complaint filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3[hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCDRC’] are as follows. Appellant 1, the complainant, is a retired Semi-Government employee and his wife Late Mrs. Manjit Kaur, aged 47 years had been working as a Government teacher. Mrs. Manjit Kaur, the patient, developed abdominal pain for which an ultrasound examination was done and it revealed the presence of gall bladder stones. On 13.07.2004 the patient approached Respondent 1, a laparoscopic surgeon at Preet Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital, Respondent 2. After due examinations and medical tests, Respondent recommended surgery for removing the gall bladder stones and prescribed certain tests to be carried out in advance.
4. The complainant got the advised investigations done and showed the results to Respondent 1. He then asked the complainant to get yet another USG examination from a specific centre as he was not satisfied with the earlier USG dated 14.7.2004. The complainant complied with this instruction of Respondent 1 and again medical tests were done from a specific USG centre on 23.7.2004. Respondent 1 was satisfied with the results and advised the complainant to get the opinion of a cardiologist as the tests revealed the patient’s blood pressure to be slightly high. On 26.07.2004, Dr. Dharamvira Gandhi, the cardiologist cleared the patient for surgery.
5. On the morning of 28.07.2004, Respondent 1 performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and placed a drain in the patient’s abdomen. On 29.07.2004, the patient complained of abdominal pain and distension. The drainage tube was showing a discharge of fluid which was slightly green in colour, which later on turned greenish-brown. When the complainant informed Respondent 1 about this, he was told that such fluid was expected and that is why the tube had been inserted. Respondent 1 also informed the complainant that he had reviewed the operative CD and assured that there was no indication of any injury, even in the operative video.
6. On the next day, the patient became very serious and the abdominal distension and pain was compounded by difficulty in breathing. Respondent 1 reassured the complainants and started oxygen infusion to the patient and prescribed some blood tests and ultrasound examination. The request for a second opinion or referral to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala attached to Medical College was dismissed by a further assurance that the patient was in safe hands. Later that evening, Respondent 1 informed the complainants the cause of the problem was acute pancreatitis and that there was nothing wrong with the surgery. However, the complainants remained unconvinced, especially because of the dirty brown discharge coming through the drain and the persistent pain, distension and breathlessness which were indicative of some major intestinal or bile duct injury, which the staff of Respondent 1 had hinted. The complainant again requested Respondent 1 to seek another opinion or shift the patient to another hospital.
7. At around 9 P.M. on 30.07.2004, Respondent 1 decided to shift the patient to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Respondent No. 4 herein and refer
(1) Medical negligence – In proceedings arising out of claim for compensation on the basis of medical negligence, opinion and findings of MCI regarding professional conduct of Doctor have great relev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainants successfully proved medical negligence on the part of the treating surgeon, leading to the patient's death. The court relied ....
Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of care and obtain informed consent; failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Known surgical complications like bowel injury during hysterectomy by qualified doctors do not constitute negligence if due care exercised; Medical Council findings post-remand hold great relevance a....
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
