2024 Supreme(SC) 980

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Neeraj Sud and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012
With
Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Neeraj Sud and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012
Decided On : 25-10-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Torts – Medical negligence – Simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of medical professional so long as doctor follows acceptable practice of medical profession in discharge of his duties – He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available.
(2) Medical negligence – Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by a doctor or that surgery has failed, doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur unless it is established by evidence that doctor failed to exercise due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Medical services – Medical negligence – Congenital disorder in his left eye – Condition of eye further deteriorated post-surgery – NCDRC held that doctor was apparently negligent in not giving proper treatment and was also careless in not performing repeat surgery – Deterioration of condition of patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of fact that surgery performed or treatment given to patient was not proper or inappropriate or that there was some negligence in administering the same – In case of surgery or such treatment it is not necessary that in every case condition of patient would improve and surgery is successful to satisfaction of patient – It is very much possible that in some rare cases complications of such nature arise but that by itself does not establish any actionable negligence on part of medical expert – No evidence was brought on record to prove that appellant had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating patient and giving treatment to him – When reasonable care, expected of medical professional, is extended or rendered to patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence – Appellant was a competent and a skilled doctor possessing requisite qualification to perform PTOSIS surgery and to administer requisite treatment and that he had followed accepted mode of practice in performing surgery – Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by a doctor or that surgery has failed, doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur unless it is established by evidence that doctor failed to exercise due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties – NCDRC ought not to have interfered with findings and impugned judgment and order of State Commission so as to hold doctor of PGI negligent and to award compensation – Judgment and order of NCDRC set aside and that of State Commission restored. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20)

(B) Torts – Medical negligence – Actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage – However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of medical professional so long as doctor follows acceptable practice of medical profession in discharge of his duties – He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment – A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving treatment. (Paras 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Complaint of complainants regarding medical negligence against appellant-Doctor and PGI was dismissed by the State Commission vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2005. Aggrieved by the above decision, the complainants preferred appeal before the NCDRC. After remand in first round, the matter again came up before the NCDRC wherein the present impugned order has been passed and the complaint has been partly allowed. The judgment and order of the State Commission dismissing complaint has been set aside holding that appellant and the PGI are jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as costs with 6% interest from the date of the complaint for negligence in treatment.

Findings of Court:

Since the complainants have failed to prove any negligence on part of the doctor or PGI, they are not entitled to any compensation as such, no question arises for its enhancement.

Result : Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 allowed and Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012 dismissed.