Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Sunita Yadav, President and Dr. Monika Malik, Member
Krishna – Appellant
versus
Dr. Pramod Sharma and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 408 of 2022
Decided on 20.1.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant. Shri Vivek Anand Nema, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Shri Deepesh Joshi, Learned Counsel

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Negligent Act – Intestinal adhesions are a known risk of major abdominal surgeries and cannot, by themselves, establish a “negligent act” without further evidence of a breach of standard protocol.
(2) Unfair Trade Practice – Performing a surgery for which a doctor is not authorized/qualified is a clear violation of professional ethics and falls under Section 2(1)(i)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as an Unfair Trade Practice.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Professional Misconduct – Qualification of Doctor – Unfair Trade Practice – Appeal against District Commission’s dismissal of a medical negligence complaint – Complainant alleged negligence during abdominal surgery (removal of masses) leading to intestinal entanglement and a second surgery – Held – While clinical negligence in the surgical procedure was not proven by the available medical records, the act of a doctor (OP No. 2) representing herself as having a “DGO” (Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics) qualification and performing specialized surgery without such authorization constitutes a “Professional Misconduct” and “Unfair Trade Practice” under Section 2(1)(i)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Notwithstanding the stay on the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) suspension order by the High Court, the unauthorized performance of surgery by an unqualified doctor is a significant service deficiency – In the absence of evidence linking the surgical complications (intestinal adhesions) specifically to negligence rather than common post-operative risks, the dismissal of the claim for medical damages was upheld – Commission observed that the medical records provided did not conclusively prove clinical negligence – Commission noted that intestinal adhesions are a known risk of major abdominal surgeries and cannot, by themselves, establish a “negligent act” without further evidence of a breach of standard protocol – Commission found that Dr. Geeta Sharma had represented herself as “M.B.B.S. DGO” on her prescription pad and performed gynecological surgery despite not having the DGO qualification – Performing a surgery for which a doctor is not authorized/qualified is a clear violation of professional ethics and falls under Section 2(1)(i)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as an Unfair Trade Practice – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Dr. Monika Malik, Member.—This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 18.4.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 626/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2. Case of the complainant is such that she observed pain in her abdomen and had therefore, shown to the opposite parties/doctors. She was admitted in their hospital on 16.1.2013, regarding removal of masses which were there in her abdomen. She alleged that after surgery she felt distension in her abdomen. On 23.1.2013 C.T. Scan was conducted and it was observed that intestines of the complainant got entangled in the surgery performed by the opposite parties/doctors. The opposite parties/doctors insisted on performing another surgery, which was done on 26.1.2013. The complainant was subsequently discharged on 6.2.2013. The complainant alleged that despite the second surgery, she observed no relief in the abdominal distension and she observed severe pain in her abdomen. The opposite parties/doctors thereafter referred her to Dr. Amitabh Goyal at Choithram Hospital. Despite everything, the complainant observed no relief in her symptoms and is still consuming medicines. The complainant alleged that nearly than Rs.4/- lakhs were spent in the entire course of treatment and alleged that the opposite parties/doctors were negligent in performing their duties. She therefore, approached the District Commisson, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/doctors before the District Commission submitted that the complainant had ovarian cyst when she approached the opposite parties. Hysterectomy on her was performed 13 years back. The opposite parties/doctors accordingly performed surgery and outcome of the surgery were explained to the complainant and her husband. Proper consent was obtained before surgery. She had history of prolonged illness. Her ovary was removed and sample was immediately sent for biopsy. It is further submitted that when the complainant again complained regarding pain and distension in abdomen, it was observed that there were adhesions in the intestines. Since the complainant wanted to show herself to Dr. Amitabh Goyal, she was referred to him accordingly. The summary sheet of Choithram Hospital also suggests that the complainant was fairly well at the time of admission in the said hospital. It was, therefore, prayed that since there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/doctors, the complaint be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission has committed manifest error of law by completely ignoring the order of the Medical Council of India, whereby the opposite parties/doctors were held guilty of medical negligence and professional misconduct and were consequently suspended from medical practice for a period of one year. Their names were removed from Indian Medical Register for one year. Failure of District Commission to consider and appreciate these statutory disciplinary findings vitiates the impugned order and renders it legally unsustainable. Admittedly, the surgery was performed by Dr. Pramod Sharma and Dr. Geeta Sharma, wherein Dr. Geeta Sharma falsely mentioned “DGO”, as her specialization, despite the fact that she was not possessing such qualification and was not authorised to perform gynecological surgery. The complainant continuously suffered in the post-operative period clearly point towards complications arising from negligent surgical intervention. The complainant was subjected to second surgery on 6.2.2013, which was again performed by Dr. Geeta Sharma, despite her lack of qualification. Therefore, such re-operation also failed. Complainant suffered near- death experience solely due to negligent act of the opposite parties/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document