IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Negligence – To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply.
(2) Deviation – Mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence.
(3) Medical profession – As long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
(4) Negligence – A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

ORDER

Heard Mr. D. Devendra Rao, Advocate, for the complainant.

2. Tariq Khusro has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite parties to pay (i) Rs.97715000/- with interest @12% per annum, as the compensation; (ii) Rs.200000/- as litigation costs; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The complainant stated that he was about 60 years old, employed at Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and working for one single company for the last 30 years and earning Rs.65/- lacs per annum. He was also into real estate business in India at Hyderabad and was earning Rs.30/- lacs approximately per annum. He grew by leaps and bounds. On account of his receding hairline and baldness, he was lured by the advertisements, bill boards and pamphlets relating to hair transplant, displayed by the opposite parties and consulted them. During consultations, Dr. Mohd. Ishratullah Khan and Dr. Taj Kazimi (OPs-1 and 2) informed that they had requisite qualification and taken extensive training in hair transplant in USA and in India and were permitted to practice by Medical Council of India; They were pioneer in this field. They stated that hair transplant used to increase self-esteem/confidence of the person. By showing photos of various unknown persons, OPs-1 and 2 stated that they had successfully carried out hair transplant/grafting of these persons, who are leading normal life. Opposite parties-1 and 2 gave various examples and glib talk and adopted various methods in convincing the complainant for hair transplant. They stated that they were charging Rs.125000/- as total expenses for hair transplant and offered discount of Rs.10000/- to the complainant. Through misleading and unconventional marketing strategies, OPs-1 and 2 trapped the complainant for hair transplant. Believing upon their representations, the complainant deposited Rs.15000/- as advance for his hair transplant. OPs-1 and 2 fixed 25.07.2016 for the procedure to be done for hair transplant and took balance amount of Rs.100000/- on that day. OPs-1 and 2 sent the complainant to Aman Hospital for clinical investigations, which was under their management. Aman Hospital took blood sample of the complainant on 23.07.2016 and gave clinical investigation report, which reflected the Random Blood Sugar at 160 mg/dl, which was on higher side and required medical attention before taking up any surgical procedure as per Standard Medical Protocol but OPs-1 and 2 without controlling blood sugar took up procedure for hair transplant on 25.07.2016. When the complainant was shifted to operation theatre, he was shocked to see the appalling condition of the operation theatre, which was poorly managed, unhygienic and lacking of the necessary infrastructure as required as per medical science for procedure of hair transplant. There was neither any arrangement to tackle an eventuality of medical emergency nor it was equipped with any life-saving equipment. Looking the condition of operation theatre, the complainant expressed his concern for his safety, in case any situation arises during the procedure of hair transplant but OPs-1 and 2 brushed aside and assured that nothing unwanted would happen. OPs-1 and 2 started procedure and implanted 2800 grafts to make hair grow from the tissues out of 3500 grafts, which was initially planned. At this stage, the complainant developed adverse reaction due to which OPs-1 and 2 discontinued the procedure and told that remaining grafting would be done after 4 days. The complainant was discharged on that day after prescribing antibiotics and pain killer. In spite of medication as prescribed, the complainant experienced unabated pain and discomfort on the scalp. His head and face swelled up and the colour of skin was turned up blue and black. Discolouration and pain continued after reaching to the house. In morning of 26.07.2016, he developed temperature and oedema on the face and eyes, blisters were found on