Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of care and obtain informed consent; failure to do so constitutes negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil appeal arises out of the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressa¹[Hereinafter referred to as the National Commission], Commission1 in First Appeal No. 248/2002 dated 16.07.2012. By the said order, the National Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-consumer by setting aside the order passed by the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh²[Hereinafter referred to as the State/UT Commission] and directed payment of compensation quantified at Rs. 7,00,000/- by the appellant, with 12% interest from the date of the order till actual payment. Questioning the decision of the National Commission, the appellant is before us. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are as follows:

2. The respondent’s wife had been suffering from abdominal pain. She went through an ultrasonography test, which showed stones in her gall bladder. The appellant is a doctor, who performed a surgery for removing the stones on 11.09.2000 on the basis of an ultrasonography. However, the patient developed various problems after the same, such as stomach ache, constipation and vomiting, etc. The patient re-consulted the appellant, who prescribed medications for pain and other symptoms. However, the patient’s problems continued to persist. Accordingly, on the suspicion of a “biliary leak”, a second ultrasonography test was conducted. The report of this test showed “more collection of fluid in the peritoneal cavity”. On 04.10.2000, the appellant conducted another surgery to drain this fluid by what is known as “needle aspiration” from the “Pouch of Douglas”.

2.1 However, the problems continued to persist, which is when the appellant referred the patient to a liver-specialist. On 16.10.2000, the liver-specialist conducted an ECRP (Endoscopic Cholangio Pancreatography) test. Despite the test, the patient’s problems were found to continue. In fact, she was found to have developed ‘contracted pancreatitis’. Eventually, due to sepsis and multi-organ failure, the patient passed away on 04.11.2000.

3. The respondent is the patient’s husband, who filed a consumer complaint before the UT Commission bearing number Complaint Case No. 6 of 2001. He claimed a sum of Rs. 8.30 lakhs as compensation for loss of his wife’s life due to the appellant’s medical negligence, which included sums claimed for mental agony and other costs.

4. The appellant denied the submissions advanced by the respondent stating that there was no medical negligence on his part. It was argued that the appellant’s conduct in treating the patient was in accordance with the prevalent medical practices. His case was that he promptly tried to address the patient’s problem after the first surgery. All the problems were dealt with reasonable care, and that all the screening measures were conducted before any surgery. It was submitted that the appellant had performed multiple surgeries of similar nature in his career and his credentials as a competent doctor were proven by record. Lastly, he contended that removal of gall bladder had no relation with the patient’s death.

5. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 27.03.2002. It was of the view that the respondent, as a complainant, had failed to discharge his onus. That is, it was not proved that a mistake on part of the appellant caused the death of the patient. It held that the respondent has not proved how established medical practices were deviated from. Mistakes, if any, were not proven to have a nexus with the patient’s death.

6. The respondent then approached the National Commission by way of an appeal. In view of the allegations about non-compliance with standard medical practice, the National Commission had constituted a Medical Board composed of experienced doctors from the G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi and summoned a report on the matter. The said report concluded that the appellant had taken steps which were in accordance with the prevailing medical stan