Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 715
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. MAJMUDAR, D. G. KARNIK
SURENDRA UGALI - Appellant
Versus
ARUN KUMAR GANGULY - Respondent
S. C. 137a Of 1999
Decided On : 11/10/2004
AJIT KUMAR GHOSAL, JOYDEEP KAR, PRASANT BANERJI, SUDHANSHU DUTTA
In medical negligence cases, the Complainant bears the burden of proving negligence by adducing expert opinion. Mere allegations, without supporting expert evidence, are insufficient to establish negligence.
Headnote:
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - EXPERT OPINION - STANDARD OF CARE - NEGLIGENCE TEST - DUTY OF CARE - INFECTION - POST-OPERATIVE CARE - BREACH OF DUTY - MEDICAL AUTHORITIES - SABISTON'S TEXT BOOK OF SURGERY - WHITE HOUSE V. JORDAN - INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION V. V. P. SHANTHA - VINITHA ASHOK (SMT.) V. LAKSHMI HOSPITAL AND ORS - ACHUTRAO HARIBHAU KHODWA AND ORS. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS - BAILEY AND LOVE'S SHORT PRACTICE OF SURGERY
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant alleged deficiency in medical service and negligence in rendering operational and post-operational services by the Appellant, a doctor. The Complainant underwent laparoscopic surgery for gall bladder removal, which was later converted to conventional surgery due to uncontrollable bleeding. The Complainant experienced complications, including stitches giving way and infection, requiring further treatment and expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The Forum held the Appellant liable for deficiency in service, finding that the Appellant should have opted for conventional surgery from the outset and that the post-operative infection was due to negligence. The Appellant challenged the Forum's order, arguing that laparoscopic surgery is widely accepted and that the infection was pre-existing and not attributable to any negligence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellant was negligent in choosing laparoscopic surgery over conventional surgery. 2. Whether the Appellant was negligent in the post-operative care, leading to the infection and complications. 3. Whether the Complainant discharged the burden of proving negligence by adducing expert opinion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Appellant's decision to perform laparoscopic surgery was not negligent, as it is a commonly accepted method with potential benefits for the patient. 2. The Court found that the Complainant failed to establish negligence in the post-operative care through expert opinion. The infection was likely caused by a pre-existing condition and not due to any negligence on the part of the Appellant. 3. The Court emphasized the importance of expert opinion in medical negligence cases, as mere allegations are insufficient to prove negligence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Forum's order, and dismissed the complaint petition.
( 2 ) THE Complainant's case has been described in detail in the impugned judgment and it is not really necessary to repeat the same fully. Very briefly speaking, the major complaints of the Complainant were as under: (1) There was obvious fault on the part of OP-4 inasmuch as he could not do justice in observing his commitment for prompt operation which would not be time consuming. Rather the complainant had to put up with serious troubles so that his life was at stake. The post operational treatment was half-hearted and the Complainant had to remain in the nursing home for about 4 weeks incurring avoidable expenses. (2) There was clear and ambiguous deficiency in medical service and utter negligence in rendering operational and post-operational services on the part of the OPs. (3) Had there been no deficiency in the medical services on the part of the Opposite parties the Complainant might have been spared incurring medical expenses in the form of consultation with other physicians, purchase of medicine, admission into another nursing home and purchase of blood.
( 3 ) THE Complainant filed the case before the Forum with the prayer for award of compensation of Rs. 1,12,275/- for deficiency in rendering medical service to the Complainant.
( 4 ) OR-4 that is the present Appellant filed a Written Objection before the Forum and the main points taken in the objection were as under: (1) The complaint petition is not maintainable since the entire medical service was provided free of cost and as such the Complainant does not come within the definition 'consumer. (2) The Complainant was suffering from acute gall bladder problem and it was a neglected case of malfunctioning of gall bladder where pus had formed, which was within the knowledge of the complainant. The Complainant had also the knowledge of the fact that the operation was a complicated one in view of the fact that there was heavy infection in the entire stomach zone. (3) The actual position of the gall bladder and its distance from the liver cannot be ascertained before operation. It is only after laparoscopic holes are made in the abdomen and the camera is inserted through the holes along with the operational instruments, through visual examination made through the screening the actual position of the gall bladder is ascertained. If it is found that the gall bladder is close to the liver, it may not be possible to remove the gall bladder by laparoscopic operation and the conventional operation may have to be resorted to by opening the abdomen. In the present case internal bleeding could not be controlled laparoscopically and the abdomen had to be necessarily opened by making an incision of about two inches on the abdomen. Thereafter internal bleeding was stopped and the abdomen was closed in layers. There was no complication so far as the operation was concerned and the Complainant also had no major grievances about the operation itself. (4) Due to neglected case of gall bladder inflammation the entire gall bladder region was highly infected. Despite administration of heavy anti-biotic the infection could not be controlled and as a result, stitches gave way. This opinion about the stitches giving way due to infection was also shared by senior surgeons like Dr. Amit Ganguly and Dr. Yogesh Baveshi who examined the patient at the OP.-4's request. On 7th December, 1996 the wound of the patient was restitched and the patient was put under wider cover of anti-biotics. (5) It has been denied by OP-4 that any assurance was given that the operation would not t
