CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and
Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
Dr. Sarita Manoj Thomas and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Rajani Jain and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.142 and 143 of 2024
Decided on 13.3.2025

IMPORTANT POINT
Medical negligence – Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by Doctor or that surgery has failed, Doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Medical negligence – Surgery for removal of Cataract – Loss of vision due to faulty surgery – Compensation awarded by District Commission – Complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of her allegations of medical negligence – Whereas, on other hand allegations of medical negligence have been discarded by subject expert – Statement of subject expert is very clear that if patient takes high blood pressure medicines irregularly, then in such a situation blood vessel in eye can burst and it can tear retina of eye – District Commission has erred in holding OPs guilty of medical negligence and in partly allowing complaint accordingly – Impugned order set aside.

Held: We have considered the above arguments advanced by learned counsels for both parties and minutely gone through the record. Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgements has settled principle regarding determination of allegations of medical negligence. Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgement in Neeraj Sud’s ca se (supra) in paragraph No.17 and 18 has held as under: –

“17. In Jacob Mathews (supra) this Court held that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that Dr. Neeraj Sud or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by Dr. Neeraj Sood was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties.

18. In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.”

In Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital, I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) in Para No.94 the Hon’ble Apex Court after scrutiny of leading cases of medical negligence in our country as well as other countries especially United Kingdom, has settled the principle to determine and decide the medical negligence cases, as under:-

“94. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view: –

I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.

III. The medical professional expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.

IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.

VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which is honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.

VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.

VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.

IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.

X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.

XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.”

In Para No.90 of the above cited judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also discussed it’s previous judgement in the case of the Jacob Mathew’s ca se (supra) as under:-

“90. In Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Court were very apt and some portions of which are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh) referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: "duty", "breach" and "resulting damage".

(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So 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.

(3) The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. 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.”

In the facts of the present case also the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of her allegations of medical negligence, whereas on the other hand the allegations of medical negligence have been discarded by the subject expert vide his opinion dated 01.08.2018 Ex. C-3 (c) available at page No.178 of the record.

With the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned District Commission has erred in holding the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 guilty of medical negligence and in partly allowing the complaint accordingly. The impugned order, deserves to be and is hereby set aside allowing both these appeals. No order as to cost. Original of this order be kept in the record of Appeal No.FA/24/142 and a certified copy thereof be placed in the record of Appeal No.FA/24/143. (Paras 11 and 15)

Result: Appeals allowed.