IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Liability of Insurance Company – Liability of Insurance Companies is strictly confined to the pecuniary limits and terms of the professional indemnity policies held by the doctors/hospital.
(2) Failure to Maintain Records – The hospital and doctors failed to maintain or produce complete medical records, including operative notes and discharge summaries containing necessary details like tumor staging or reasons for lymph node removal. This suppression or lack of evidence led to an adverse inference against them.
(3) Invalid Consent – The consent obtained was general (for anesthesia/surgery) and did not cover the specific extensive radical surgery or its severe potential complications; thus, it was not “informed consent” in the legal sense.
(4) Deficiency in Reporting – The pathologists were held negligent for issuing a report “suggestive of Malignant Melanoma” without following standard medical protocols (Royal College/WHO guidelines) which mandate recording tumor dimensions, thickness (Breslow’s depth), and staging.
(5) Standard of Consent – The Commission reiterated that informed consent is not merely a signature on a form. It requires a comprehensive explanation of the diagnosis, prognosis, alternative treatments, and specific risks (e.g., nerve damage).

ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President.—These Appeals arise out of a 142 paragraph order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 31.08.2018 running into 123 pages with more than a 1000 pages of pleadings, evidence, applications, affidavits and orders. The volume of the pleadings is obvious on account of the nature of the complaint of an alleged medical negligence that took the shape of CC No. 10 of 2015 filed by Dr. Kanwalpreet Kaur, herself a Dentist, who has described and narrated her experience of a facial surgery undergone by her, which according to her was unnecessary and was performed in haste, treating it to be malignant, whereas according to her and the evidence relied upon by her, the surgery was based on absolutely infirm prognosis and an unconfirmed diagnosis of malignancy that was later on found to be just the opposite. The complaint was filed by her, alleging negligence against the Pathologists who conducted the pre-operative, pathological tests, the haste with which the surgeons performed the surgery and the consequences which she had to face that has transformed her life into a permanent trauma.

2. The State Commission after having perused the pleadings and assessed the evidence finally arrived at the conclusion that there was negligence at both the stages of diagnosis and treatment and as a consequence thereof, the complainant had to suffer further complications, as such the Complaint deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2018, the State Commission awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.55.00 lakhs as compensation the liability distributed in the manner as indicated in paragraph no. 140 of the impugned judgment together with Rs.55,000/- as litigation costs and also indicating the liabilities of the insurers. The amount awarded has been supplemented with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 16.01.2015 till its realization.

3. The liability with regard to negligence in the pathological assessment has been fixed on OP No.1 Dayanand Medical College, and OP No.5,6 and 7, who are the pathologists having prepared the reports that are contested, and OP No.8, the Principal Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. They have been saddled with a liability of Rs.10.00 lacs + 9% interest out of the total amount and the liability for the negligent surgery has been fixed on OP No.2, 3 and 4, namely, the Mediways Hospital, Dr. Satish Jain and Dr. Sumeet Jain. They have been saddled with the liability of the balance of Rs.45.00 lacs together with interest thereon.

4. Since they were having professional immunity insurance covers by United India Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company respectively to the extent indicated, observations were made in respect to the limited reimbursements available. Even though applications had been moved for deleting the Insurance Companies but the final order of the State Commission explains their involvement to the limited extent of indemnification.

5. With the aforesaid liabilities imposed upon them, the Dayanand Medical College, its Principal and the three doctors have filed First Appeal No. 479 of 2019 praying for setting aside of the impugned order. Similarly, Mediways Hospital alongwith the surgeons Dr. Satish Jain and Dr. Sumeet Jain have filed First Appeal No. 664 of 2019 praying for setting aside of the impugned order. Later on, the United India Insurance Company and the Oriental J Insurance Company have also filed First Appeal Nos: 1637 of 2019 and 1639 of 2019 assailing the impugned order, contending that in the absence of any privity of contract between the complainant and the Insurance Company or any liability whatsoever, the impugned order deserves to be set aside insofaras it comments upon and imposes liabilities against the said applicants.

6. The complainant Dr. Kanwalpreet Kaur has approached this Commission first by filing First Appeal No. 476 of 2019 praying that with the findings of negligence arrived at by the State Commission, the quantum