Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.-The proverbial "needle of suspicion" in this case ultimately turned out to be a curbed foreign body which stood lodged in the system of the respondent. She had undergone a caesarean operation on 1st October, 1998. Thereafter she complained of pain. She was examined by the appellant-doctor. It was noticed that respondent was complaining of pain and irritation in the lower abdominal region which was described as vague. The respondent got herself X-rayed, Ultra-Sound and CT Scanning was also got done. It was found that a foreign body stood lodged in her system. This foreign body stands removed. It is for this, the damages were claimed. The damages have been allowed. Appellants in these appeals seek reversal of the order passed by the State Commission.

"A person who holds himself out as ready to give medical advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Whether or not he is a registered medical practitioner, such a person who is consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, namely a duty of care. In deciding whether to undertake the case; a ˜duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, a duty of care in his administration of that treatment and a duty of care in answering a question put to" him by a patient in circumstances in which he knows that the patient intends to rely on his answer. A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient."

The aforementioned statement of law has been quoted from Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 30, Fourth Edition, page 31 paragraph 34. With regard to the degree of skill and care required from a medical practitioner, what is said in paragraph 35 can also be quoted with advantage. This is being quoted:

"The practitioner must bring to his task 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, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men. .

Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it must be shown, (1) that there is usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care.

It is a defence to a practitioner that he acted on the specific instructions of a consultant who had taken over responsibility for the case. Failure to use due skill in diagnosis with the result that wrong treatment is given is negligence.

It is in the light of the aforementioned broad principles, what is projected in these appeals is being noticed."

2. Respondent-complainant was admitted in a hospital, namely Bee Enn General Hospital at Jammu. This was on 30th September, 1998..

She was under the care of Doctor Satya Atri. The complainant was operated upon. She gave birth to a female child. This operation was performed on 1st October, 1998. The complainant remained in the hospital till 5th October, 1998. She was discharged on the same day at 9 p.m. For the service rendered to the complainant, she paid a sum of Rs. 8,819/-. The further fact which was projected by the complainant and which stands noticed by the Commission constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Protection Act, before whom the complaint was filed, is that she started having acute pain in the lower abdominal region. She was examined by the lady doctor referred to above. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document