Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Sugandha Batra, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Radhika Gupta, AOR Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ananya Marwah, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv. Mr. Chander Tanay Chobe, Adv.

Key Points: - The court held that Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply given the lack of a ‘Res’ and the absence of strong incriminating evidence linking post-operative care to the cardiac arrest (!) (!) . - The evidence shows no prior heart problems or diabetes/hypertension; standard practice permitted sending patients to wards rather than ICU if no complications, and no negligence was proven in post-operative care (!) (!) (!) . - Expert opinions (e.g., Prof. Ahuja) concluded the complications were unrelated to the surgery and not indicative of cardiac arrest symptoms, supporting dismissal of negligence claims (!) (!) . - The respondent hospital and doctors were found not liable for medical negligence; standard of care judged against ordinary competent practice at the relevant time (!) (!) . - The Tribunal noted that negligence cannot be presumed from a poor outcome; there must be clear medical evidence of negligence or a glaring lapse, which was not established here (!) (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, affirming that post-operative care did not breach the standard of care and that no causal link to the death was proven (!) .

What is the applicability of the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur in medical negligence claims in this case?

What is the court’s view on post-operative care standards and the necessity of ICU transfer after major neurosurgery?

What is the standard of proof and the tested connection between post-operative care and cardiac arrest leading to death?