Medical negligence is not established merely by the failure of a treatment to produce the desired result. The burden rests entirely on the complainant to prove a breach of standard duty through cogent expert evidence; absence of such evidence precludes a finding of deficiency in service or professional negligence.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

ORDER

1. Three separate Revision Petitions have been preferred on behalf of the complainant (Sushil Mukesh Gaglani) bearing No.681, 682 and 683 of 2022, before this Commission assailing Order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned State Commission, Maharashtra whereby three separate Appeals preferred on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 {(i.e. Appeal No.A/19/203 preferred by Dr. Madhuri Aggarwal (OP-3 in the complaint; Appeal No. A/19/205 preferred by Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd. and Chetan Purushottam (OP-1 and 2 in the complaint) and Appeal No. A/19/438 preferred by Dr. Satish Kishoranadn Arolkar (OP-4 in the complaint)} were partly allowed.

2. The aforesaid Order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned State Commission has also been separately challenged by OPs 1 to 4 by way of three separate Revision Petitions {i.e RP No.182 of 2021 preferred by Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Chetan Purushottam/OP-1 & 2; Revision Petition No.1183 of 2020 preferred by Dr. Madhuri Agarwal/OP-3 and Revision Petition No.1038 of 2020 preferred by Dr. Satish Kishoranadn Arolkar/OP-4}.

The Revisionists and respondents hereinafter are referred to as ‘complainants and opposite parties’ as appearing in the complaint filed before the learned District Forum, for sake of convenience.

3. Learned District Forum, Mumbai vide Order dated 04.12.2018 held that OP No.1 to 4 indulged into unfair trade practice in connivance with each other and further awarded compensation as under :-

“Order:-

1) Complainant No.292 of 2015 partly allowed.

2) Opposite Party no. 1 and 4 have been made default to give proper and good service to the complainant, similarly, hence, it is declared that they have used improper and unjust professional unfavourable procedure practice and process.

3) Therefore, Opposite Party no.1 to 4 shall be jointly or individually shall paid a sum of Rs.59,525/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand five hundred twenty five only) which was paid to Opposite Parties by him, till the 31/10/2019 failing which interest amount shall be made applicable to this amount as per rates of 15% p.a. w.e.f. 01/02/2019.

4) Opposite Party No.1 to 4 shall be paid individually or jointly a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) to the complainant towards mentally torture and physically harassment till the date 31/10/2019. And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost and charges of this complaint till 31/01/2019. Failing which, interest amount at the rate of 10% p.a. shall be made applicable to these all amounts till the realization of final payment.

……………………”

4. Learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the findings of the learned District Forum in CC No.292/2015 but reduced the compensation as under :-

“ORDER

a) Consumer complaint no.CC/12/292 is partly allowed on the ground that opponent nos.1 to 4 indulged into unfair medical trade practice as also were responsible in connivance with each other for deficiency in service.

b) Opponent nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally are liabl