Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
GULAB SINGH—Appellant
versus
PGI & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 125 of 2005—Decided on 18.10.2005
IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellant failed to prove carelessness of the respondents in alleged operation by any expert evidence and it was established that said operation was conducted to save his life and ears, allegation of medical negligence falls to the ground.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant, Gulab Singh, filed a complaint alleging medical negligence and seeking compensation for disfigurement, pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings due to alleged surgical errors at PGI, Chandigarh (!) (!) .
The facts show that the appellant had a history of ear problems, having previously undergone surgery in 1992, and was later advised by PGI doctors to undergo another operation in 2002 for his right ear, which he consented to in writing (!) (!) .
Post-operation, the appellant experienced complications including water leakage from the eye, facial palsy, and disfigurement. He claimed these were due to negligence during surgery, specifically damage to veins leading to the eye and cheek (!) (!) .
The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the surgery was conducted with proper care, that the appellant’s pre-existing conditions and disease severity justified the procedures, and that the disfigurement was due to the disease itself, not negligence (!) (!) .
The evidence, including medical records and expert opinions, indicated that the appellant’s facial palsy and disfigurement pre-existed or were caused by the disease, and there was no conclusive proof of negligence by PGI doctors (!) (!) .
The court noted that the appellant failed to produce expert evidence establishing that the surgical procedure was negligently performed or that the damage to veins was caused during the 2002 operation. The appellant's claim relied on opinions from other doctors who did not provide written or affidavit evidence linking the alleged damage to the surgery at PGI (!) (!) .
The court observed that the appellant did not demonstrate that the disfigurement was a direct result of negligence, and the medical records supported the conclusion that the treatment was appropriate and necessary to save his life (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove negligence or that the respondents' conduct was reckless or careless, and that the evidence did not substantiate his claims of damages due to surgical errors (!) (!) .
The order emphasized that the burden was on the appellant to prove negligence, which he did not meet, and that the medical treatment was carried out with due care and caution to prevent fatal complications (!) (!) .
The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the order was communicated accordingly (!) .
This summary encapsulates the court's reasoning and the factual and legal basis for the dismissal of the claim.
Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 4.5.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby his complaint was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) is resident of Village Naina, Tehsil and District Kaithal (Haryana) and was suffering from pain and other ailments in his right ear. In the year 1992, he had consulted Dr. Rajesh Loomba at Ambala, who operated his right ear. After the operation, he felt relief in his right ear from the problem of headache and leaking of liquid from that ear. In the year 2002, he felt the same problem in the left ear and contacted Dr. Rajesh Loomba at Ambala, who after examination advised him to get better treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. Accordingly he visited PGI, Chandigarh and was examined by the doctors, who after examination, advised him that right ear was to be operated upon again and with that operation, his problems such as headache, loss of hearing of the left ear and facial palsy would be removed.
3. It was further averred that he was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 31.5.2002 and was operated upon on 6.6.2002 for his right ear and was discharged on 7.6.2002 after the operation. He was called for recheckup by the doctors in PGI and he had been attending in time as and when called for.
4. It was next averred that after 3-4 days of the operation, he observed that after the operation, his right eye remained open while he was in sleep and water also leaked continuously from that eye and he experienced heaviness in his forehead and the ear remained almost wet. Consequently, he went to the PGI and reported the problems and the doctors gave 2-3 stitches on the right eyelid and told that those stitches would be removed and was called on the next Wednesday for that purpose but those stitches were not removed and finally in the month of December, 2002 he was told that stitches would remain forever. He also complained that his left ear had again started giving discharge and he had experienced facial palsy but his repeated visits to the PGI did not show any improvement. His face after operation was disfigured as he had suffered partial paralysis of the face muscles. Although he spent huge amount on his treatment, yet his condition did not improve. With the facial palsy/disfigurement, defect in the eye and ear, he is not fit to get a Government job. This problem had occurred due to gross negligence of the doctors of PGI. It was further averred that he consulted specialists Dr. Grover of Grover Hospital, Chandigarh and Dr. S.K. Kacher, New Delhi and both the doctors told him that he had to live with all these ailments throughout his life because while operating his right ear, some veins leading to eye and of right cheek, had been damaged and except plastic surgery, there was no other treatment but he did not go for plastic surgery as the treatment of the face was very expensive and beyond his capacity. With these allegations, the appellant had claimed following amounts from the respondents jointly and severally:
(i) Rs. 5 lac for pain and suffering and the expenses incurred by the complainant during the treatment and thereafter.
(ii) Rs. 5 lac for disfigurement of face, right eye and the ears, and facial palsy.
(iii) Rs. 5 lac as token compensation for loss of future earnings and permanent disability for the whole life and humiliation on account of loss of hearing, disfigurement which the complainant has to face throughout life.
5. Respondents contested the complaint and filed joint written statement. They took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was not maintainable as the appellant (complainant) had failed to show as to what element of negligence was involved in giving treatment to him by respondent Nos. 2 and 3; that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as various doctors who had atte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
