Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member—This is a complaint against opposite party for grant of compensation for the negligence in operation and treatment of his grand daughter who went into comma after treatment and was still in comma on the date of filing of complaint.

2. The complainant has alleged that after the child came into comma the child was not given proper nursing care for recovery from comma. That the reason for her coming into comma was blood clotting for which due precaution was not taken by the treating Surgeon. That the treating Surgeon was not an expert in Cardio Thoresic surgery.

3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case. The complainant has not filed any documentary or oral evidence indicating any kind of negligence in performance of operation by the Surgeon, or in the post operative care by the Hospital Nursing Staff. So far as the treating Surgeon is concerned, we find that he has filed an affidavit stating that he is MS in general surgery and has worked as Cardio-Thoresic Surgeon in Bombay Hospital for 1974 to 1976 and has been going abroad frequently to study latest developments and techniques in Cardio-Thoresic Surgery. He also gave to the complainant a certificate dated June 24, 1995, wherein he has categorically stated that the patient developed unforeseen post operative complications.

4. In Hatcher v. Black, (1954) Times, 2nd July, Lord Denning explained the Law on the subject of negligence against doctors and hospitals that a doctor should only be found guilty of negligence when he falls short of the standard of a reasonably skillful medical man, in short when he is deserving of censure for negligence. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of J.N. Shrivastava v. Rambhiharilal, AIR 1992 MP 132, has observed that a medical practitioner can only be held liable if his mistake is of such a nature as to imply absence of reasonable care or skill on his part regard being held to the ordinary level of scheme in the provision. M.C. Nair, J. in case of Bolam v. Frien Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 2 All.ER 118, observed thus :

“In the case of a medical man, negligence means failure to act in accordance with standards of reasonably competent man at the time”.

5. In case of Sethuramani Subramaniam Iyer v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., I (1998) CPJ 110 (NC)=1998 CCJ page 1532, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that in the absence of production of any expert evidence indicating negligence, the opposite parties cannot be held to be negligent in their service in treating the patient.

6. As has been held in case of Darshan Devi v. Rajeshwari Prasad, I (1998) CPJ 358, in this case also, nobody has opined that there was any negligence or recklessness or departure from accepted and established rules of treatment.

7. As such we find that the complainant had utterly failed to establish any kind of negligence on the part of the opposite party. We therefore, dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Complaint dismissed.

––