SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2725

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Swechha Kothari – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 84/2022 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 25/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Singhavi, Arpit Prakash, Sushil Kumar Gupta, Sunita Gupta
For the Respondents: J.P. Sharma, Arun Kothari

Medical negligence is established when a practitioner fails to exercise reasonable skill and care, such as omitting essential pre-operative diagnostic tests for high-risk surgical procedures. Liability arises not from an adverse outcome itself, but from the breach of standard practices and failure to exercise due professional caution.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in service - Pre-operative duty of care - Failure to perform mandatory diagnostic tests - Vicarious liability of hospital. (Paras 3, 12, 12.2)

(B) Medical Negligence - Principle of liability - Medical practitioner is not liable for every adverse outcome, but is liable if there is a failure to exercise reasonable skill and care expected of an ordinary competent professional - Failure to perform critical diagnostic test notwithstanding non-emergency nature of surgery constitutes negligence rather than mere error of judgment. (Paras 12.2, 13.1)

(C) Compensation - Quantum of damages - Must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate to loss or injury - Absence of evidence regarding continued medical condition or financial loss necessitates reduction in arbitrary or excessive awards. (Paras 13, 13.1)

Facts of the case:
A patient underwent surgery for a nasal condition without a pre-operative scan, resulting in complications involving bleeding in the brain. The complainants alleged medical negligence due to the absence of the scan and inadequate post-operative care, while the medical professionals contended it was a rare complication managed according to standard protocols and questioned the patient's status as a consumer.

Findings of Court:
The court held that performing a precision surgery near the brain without a pre-operative imaging test, despite there being no emergency, constituted a failure of the duty of care. The court also rejected the defense that the procedure was performed for free as a bar to consumer status and found the hospital vicariously liable for the surgeon's lapse.

Issues: Whether the failure to perform a pre-operative diagnostic scan amounts to medical negligence and whether the hospital and the treating doctor are liable for resulting complications and subsequent lack of proper monitoring.

Ratio Decidendi: Medical negligence is established when a professional deviates from the standard expected care, such as omitting critical pre-operative diagnostics that could have ensured safety. While adverse outcomes do not universally imply negligence, conducting high-risk surgery without established diagnostic protocols cannot be excused as a mere error of judgment, and compensation must be strictly evidence-based.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; compensation modified to a reduced total amount with interest, ensuring insurer liability is capped as per policy.

Table of Content
1. analysis of medical standards, the duty of care, and the evidentiary value of expert committee warnings. (Para 1 , 3 , 9 , 12)
2. establishing the factual matrix surrounding the alleged medical negligence and the parties' conflicting narratives. (Para 2 , 8 , 10)
3. arguments concerning surgical negligence, the necessity of pre-operative ct scans, and the validity of expert medical committee reports. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 11)
4. principles for assessing fair and reasonable compensation and the liability of indemnity insurance providers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the Complainants, Dr. Manish Sanghavi, Senior Advocate for Dr. Gupta and for Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital and Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, counsel for the insurance company.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the complaint filed on 03.05.2010 are, that the complainant No.1, Kumari Swechha Kothari, a young girl, had been suffering from nasal problems, including discharge and obstruction. On 10.04.2008, she visited Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur, where she was examined by Dr. A.K. Gupta, an ENT specialist. After a preliminary examination, Dr. Gupta diagnosed her with nasal polyps and advised surgery. The complainant and her father (Complainant No.2, Shri Arun Kothari) were assured that it was a minor routine operation and that she would recover soon. On 11.04.2008, the complainant underwent endoscopic nasal polyp surgery performed by Dr. A.K. Gupta at Geetanjli Hospital. However, it was alleged that the surgery was done without conducting a CT Scan of the Paranasal Sinuses, which is a mandatory pre-operative investigation to determine the exact extent and location of the nasal polyp. According to the complainants, the hospital record falsely mentioned that “CT Scan PNS advised but patient refused,” which was an afterthought and written later in different ink and different handwriting to cover up the doctor’s negligence. Immediately after the surgery, the complainant began to suffer from severe headache and continuous pain. A CT Scan performed on 12.04.2008 at the same hospital revealed that she had suffered a Subarachnoid Haemorrhage (SAH) — a serious condition involving bleeding in the brain. Despite this, she was kept in the hospital and treated only with routine medicines. Further CT scans were conducted on 16.04.2008, 18.04.2008, and 21.04.2008, showing no improvement in her condition. As her health continued to deteriorate, her family sought the opinion of another specialist, Dr. A.A. Shafi, a neurologist, who advised an MRI scan. The MRI report dated 23.04.2008 showed that due to a bony defect at the base of the skull, a part of the brain had herniated into the nasal cavity — a condition known as encephalocele — caused by surgical injury during the nasal operation. The patient/complainant immediately took discharge from Geetanjli Hospital on 24.04.2008 and proceeded to Ahmedabad, where Dr. Deepak Patel performed brain surgery on 26.04.2008 in SAL Hospital. The complainants alleged that because of the negligence of Dr. A.K. Gupta in performing the surgery without a CT scan and without proper care, the complainant suffered permanent brain injury, underwent multiple surgeries, and faced prolonged physical and mental suffering. Her daily life was severely restricted, as she was advised not to drive, not to go near fire or cold water, and to avoid heights and strenuous activity. Complainants claimed that this amounted to gross medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and the doctor. The complainants sought ₹1,84,284/- towards medical expenses incurred during the treatment and ₹27,50,000/- towards mental agony, physical harassment, and loss of normal life-style, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment of the treatment expenses of Complainant No.1.

2.2 The Opposite Parties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top