Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Tapen Sen and Shabnam Parveen, Members
RAJ HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI JOGESH GAMBHIR - Appellant
Versus
MAYA SHARMA - Respondent
F.A. No. 82 of 2017
Decided on : 22-05-2018
Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv., Rahul Gupta, Adv., Achinto Sen, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard for determining medical negligence, emphasizing the need for a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, the absence of gross misconduct or recklessness, and the consideration of expert opinions.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Dispute - [FACT OF THE CASE] The case involved a dispute over the death of a patient due to alleged medical negligence. The Respondents claimed that the patient died due to negligence and/or deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the treatment given was neither deficient nor negligent. The court analyzed the medical records and expert opinions to conclude that the doctors involved were competent and had not acted negligently. [ISSUES] The main issue was whether the doctors were negligent in their treatment of the patient. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court applied the legal principles established in previous judgments to determine medical negligence, emphasizing the need for a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and the absence of gross misconduct or recklessness. [FINAL DECISION] The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the lower forum and directing the return of any deposited amounts by the Appellants.
ORDER
Tapen Sen, President
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in Consumer Case No. 185 of 2003 by the learned District Consumer Forum at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Lower Forum) by which these Appellants were held guilty of deficiency in service and negligence and were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 (Ten) Lakhs to the Respondents within a period of 60 days failing which, interest @ 12% was imposed upon them making it payable from the date of passing of the Order. A sum of Rs. 15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) was also awarded towards Costs for litigation.
2. It appears that the said Complaint Case No. 185 of 2003 filed by the Respondents before the learned Lower Forum stood Dismissed vide Order dated 06.05.2004. The Respondents thereafter preferred an Appeal before this Commission being F.A. No. 226 of 2004 and it came to be allowed by Order dated 25.05.2005 directing these Appellants to pay the sum of Rs. 10 (Ten) Lakhs as compensation.
3. Being aggrieved, the Appellants moved up in Revision before the Hon'ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No. 1771 of 2005 which was disposed of 16.06.2009 remanding the matter to the Commission for deciding the case afresh. The Commission, once again, by its Order dated 19.04.2010 passed in F.A. No. 226 of 2004 Ordered the Appellants to pay Rs. 10 (Ten) Lakhs after deducting the amounts already paid.
This Order was challenged before the National Commission vide Revision Petition No. 2602 of 2010 and 2722 of 2011.
4. Those Revision Petitions, by consent of parties, were disposed of 16.02.2016 setting aside the Impugned Orders remanding the same to the learned lower Forum for deciding the Complaint afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to examine experts in support of their respective cases and the amounts which the Appellants had deposited before the State Commission in compliance of an interim Order, was Ordered to remain in deposit during the pendency of the Complaint and the amounts already paid to the Complainants were not to be refunded.
5. It appears that thereafter the matter, on remand, was taken up by the learned lower Forum in Consumer Complaint Case No. 185 of 2003 and by its Order dated 28.11.2016, it was held that there was negligence and deficiency in service in providing treatment to the deceased Navin Kumar Sharma and accordingly, the Appellants were directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 10 (Ten) Lakhs within 60 days failing which, the Complainants were made entitled to recover the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the Order till realization/recovery making it further clear that the amount to be paid would be after deducting a sum of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) deposited by them before this Commission in compliance of Order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1771 of 2005. Since out of the aforementioned amount, Rs. 1, 25, 000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) had already been released in favor of the Respondents, it was Ordered that the Complainants/Respondents may withdraw the remaining amount from the State Commission. The learned lower Forum also recorded that the Hon'ble National Commission had also passed an Order on 03.08.2010 in Revision Petition No. 2602 of 2010 that a sum of Rs. 2, 50, 000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) which was deposited by the Appellants by the said learned lower Forum be kept in fixed deposit, but no order was to be passed by the said learned lower Forum with respect to that amount in view of the Order dated 03.08.2010 referred to above. A sum of Rs. 50, 000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) by way of litigation Costs was also allowed.
6. It is against the aforementioned Order/judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned lower Forum in Consumer Case No. 185 of 2003 that this Appeal has been filed before us.
7. The short facts which led to the instant litigati
