Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 421
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Radha Dharman – Appellant
Versus
Vineet Gupta – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 3623 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Biju Dharman
For the Respondents: Anupam Sharrma
A medical professional is not liable for negligence if they exercise the standard of care expected of an ordinary competent practitioner and follow accepted medical protocols; mere failure of treatment or death does not establish medical negligence absent cogent expert evidence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Medical Negligence - Burden of Proof - Medical standard of care - Duty of medical professional involves exercising ordinary skill of an ordinary competent person; not guarantee of success.
(B) Medical Negligence - Bolam Rule - Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Medical professional is not liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment existed or the patient did not respond favourably, provided the practice followed is acceptable to the medical profession.
(C) Complaint - Suppression of material facts - Failure of the complainant to produce expert medical evidence to support allegations of negligence renders the complaint unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The deceased, suffering from advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma, cirrhosis, and heart disease, underwent TACE treatment which resulted in cardiac arrest and death. Complainants alleged negligence, lack of informed consent, and insensitive behavior by the hospital and oncologist.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the palliative treatment plan was appropriate, the procedure was performed by an Interventional Radiologist (not the primary opposite party), and the complainants failed to establish either a breach of duty or medical negligence.
Issues: Whether the oncology treatment provided involved medical negligence or deficiency of service, and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the post-procedural death.
Ratio Decidendi: Medical professionals are not liable for negligence simply because a procedure proves unsuccessful, provided they follow standard medical protocols. The burden of proof rests on the complainant to provide expert evidence, and the failure of a patient to recover does not automatically trigger the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of medical history and treatment leading to the claim. (Para 1) |
| 2. summary of contentions, procedural history, and parties' responses. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. application of established medical standards regarding negligence (bolam principle). (Para 7) |
| 4. court’s assessment of evidence, finding no breach of standard of care by medical staff. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. dismissal of complaint due to absence of proof of deficiency in service. (Para 12) |
( The opposite parties no 3 to 5 as arrayed in original complaint were ordered to be deleted vide order dated 11.02.2019)
JUDGMENT
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The relevant facts as emerging from the complaint are that P. R. Dharman (hereinafter referred to as "the patient”) was predecessor in interest of the complainants. The patient was detected with Multicentric Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Cirrhosis. The complainants were in consultation with the opposite party no 1 who was an oncologist with the opposite party no 2. The opposite party no 1 had instructed the complainants to meet him on 29.02.2016 to finalize the course of action. The patient as per advice of the opposite party no 1 was admitted in the opposite party no 2 as inpatient on 01.03.2016. The opposite party no. 1 advised the complainants that Trans Arterial Chemo Embolization (TACE) was the best option for curing Multicentric Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Cirrhosis and also assured the complainants that there was no imminent danger in undergoing TACE treatment. The opposite party no 1 never informed the complainants about risk associated with TACE treatment. The opposite party no 1 highlighted about failure possibilities of TACE only after the treatment and not prior to the treatment. TACE treatment immediately resulted into severe heart attack and consequently sudden and unfortunate death of the patient. The opposite party no 1 happened to be senior doctor with 17 years of experience with the opposite party no 2. The complainants consented for TACE treatment due to assurance given by the opposite party no 1. The opposite party no 1 also got signed the consent forum from the complainant no 2 for TACE treatment. The complainants were also informed that the patient would require shifting to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) due to high level of potassium and low level of calcium as per protocol of the opposite party no 2. The patient on 02.03.2016 at 5.30 pm was moved to the Cath Lab for the TACE procedure. The complainants at about 7.30 pm were informed that the treatment was successfully completed and the patient was shifted to MICU for safe recovery.
1.1 The complainants left the hospital but at about 9:00 pm received an urgent call to return. The complainants after reaching the opposite party no 2 were informed that the patient had suffered a severe heart attack and an immediate angiogram was required to be done. The complainant no 2 also signed the requisite papers. The angiogram revealed that the heart was severely affected due to the TACE treatment and the patient was moved to the Coronary Care Unit (CCU). The patient was put on ventilator on 03.03.2016 following a cardiac arrest. The opposite parties highlighted the failure possibilities of the TACE treatment only after it was carried out otherwise the complainants would have opted for other options. The opposite party no 1 on 03.03.2016 and 04.03.2016 made unethical and inhuman statements to the complainants in the CCU passage. The complainants took grievance to the management of the opposite party no 2 and senior officers of the opposite party no 2 apologized for conduct of the opposite party no. 1 and accepted faults in handling the patient. The patient on 04.03.2016 at about 7:00 pm passed away due to medical negligence, disinterest, and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant no. 2 also lodged complaints before the Karnataka Medical Council and the jurisdictional pol
