IMPORTANT POINT
Medical negligence cannot be judged on extraordinary yardsticks.

Anupam Dasgupta, Member—This appeal challenges the order dated 21.01.1999 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereafter, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 58 of 1997. The original complainants (appellants before us; hereafter referred to as ‘the complainants’) filed a complaint before the State Commission, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the original opposite parties (respondents here and referred to as ‘the OPs’) in treating Kamalesh Kumari (hereafter, “Kamalesh”) the deceased wife of complainant no. 1 and mother of the other complainants. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the State commission dismissed the complaint, which has led to this appeal.

II. The Facts

2. We find the discussion of facts of the case in the impugned order of the State Commission grossly inadequate. Hence, it is necessary to re-state the facts in some detail for proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties. During the period in question, Kamalesh underwent medical/surgical treatment in two phases, viz., first in OP 1 at the hands of OP 2 and then at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGI) and some other hospitals. The undisputed facts gleaned from the pleadings, averments and, mainly, the documents on record are as under:

2.1 (i) Kamalesh suffered from excessive vaginal bleeding with pain at the time of menstruation (menorrhagia) and was under the treatment of OP 2 at OP 1 since October 1990. OP 2 performed a dilatation and curetting (D&C) procedure on Kamalesh on 20.10.1990 and sent the curettings (tissues) to the Government Medical College (GMC), Amritsar for histopathological examination (HPE). The HPE report dated 27.10.1990 of the D&C curettings showed chronic endometriosis with metaplasia and changes in the squamous epithelium, and advised cervical biopsy. However, the medical record of OP 1 for this D&C did not refer to the findings of this HPE report though it contained entries of 06.11.1990, i.e., well after the date of the HPE report. Further, while this record did not mention the need for cervical biopsy recommended in the HPE report, it did note the advice of OP 2 about abdominal hysterectomy.

(ii) Kamalesh consulted OP 2 infrequently during 1990-1995. During this period, OP 2 treated Kamalesh for her continuing menorrhagia with medication.

(iii) In September 1995, OP 2 examined Kamalesh in detail at OP 1. The medical record dated 23.09.1995 of OP 1 mentioned, inter alia, the complaint of menorrhagia with pain and the existence of a uterine fibroid polyp projecting through the cervix. It also noted the finding of an ultrasonograph (USG) report, which referred to a fibroid of 25 mm. However, there was no reference to the date of this USG report nor of the clinic where it was done nor was there any mention of the D&C carried out in October 1990 or of the finding of the HPE after that D&C. This record noted the advice of several blood (pathological) tests, urine culture and ECG to be got done by Kamalesh as a pre-requisite for the Total Abdominal Hysterectomy (TAH) planned for 05.10.1995. Consent for this surgery was stated to have been given by complainant no.1, the husband of Kamalesh. During the surgery, OP 2 removed the uterus, right ovary and fallopian tube, leaving the left ovary and tube intact.

(iv) The excised uterus, cervix, fallopian tube and ovary were sent for HPE to GMC, Amritsar. Kamalesh was discharged on 13.10.1995. Kamalesh’s patient record at OP 1 for the period 04-13.10.1995 mentioned the results of the pre-operative pathological tests and ECG and noted the bare fact that she had D&C five years ago. It also quoted the findings of the HPE of the excised uterus, etc., as per the report dated 18.10.1995 of GMC, Amritsar, in the following words:

“HPR 18/10

Chronic cervicitis with Nabothian follicles

epidermization of endocervical glands

Proliferative endometri