Medical negligence is established when a professional lacks the requisite skill or fails to exercise reasonable competence. Informed consent for a minor procedure does not cover distinct, invasive interventions, and failure to adhere to recognized professional standards of care constitutes actionable deficiency in service.

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The relevant facts as emerging from the original complaint are that the complainant Vinod Kumar who is appellant in First Appeal bearing no 976 of 2017 and respondent in First Appeal bearing no 574 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has taken his mother namely Saraswati Devi to Dr. Brij Lal as she was having difficulty in swallowing food. The mother of the complainant was found to be healthy after medical examination as informed by the Dr. Brij Lal and there was no ailment in throat of mother of the complainant. The X-ray was also taken to remove any doubt and Dr. Brij Lal after examination informed the complainant that esophagus of the mother got shrink to some extent and may be due to old age. Dr. Brij Lal prescribed endoscopy and thereafter medicines would be prescribed. Dr. Brij Lal recommended Dr. Vireshwar Prasad/the opposite party no 1/the appellant no 1 in First Appeal bearing no 574 of 2017 and the respondent no 1 in First Appeal bearing no 976 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no 1”) for endoscopy and the opposite party no 1 was running Brindaban Nursing Home/the opposite party no 2/ the appellant no 2 in First Appeal bearing no 574 of 2017 and the respondent no 2 in First Appeal bearing no 976 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “ the opposite party no 2”). The complainant along with mother visited the opposite party no 2 on 11.06.2004 where mother was examined by the opposite party no 1. The opposite party no 1 asked mother to undergo dilation and esophagus copy besides taking ECG. The opposite party conveyed to the complainant that esophagus copy is medical nomenclature of endoscopy and dilation is the process of correcting the shrinking of esophagus and this is a safe process without involving any danger. The opposite party asked the complainant to bring his mother on next day without disclosing that the mother would be required to be admitted in the opposite party no 2.

1.1 The complainant on 12.06.2004 reached at the opposite party no 2 along with mother where she was examined by the opposite party no 1. The complainant also deposited necessary charges for the procedure. The opposite party no 1 has taken the mother to the operation theater. The complainant was called by the opposite party no 1 at about 2 pm into the operation theater and the complainant in the operation theater noticed that mother was very much restless due to severe pain and blood was oozing from her mouth. The complainant asked about this situation of mother and was informed that pipe was inserted in trachea in place of esophagus. The complainant was asked to bring some medicines immediately. The complainant also realized that anesthetist was also not called and was not made properly unconscious. The pipe was got inserted in trachea in place of esophagus and lungs were got damaged resulting into oozing of blood from mouth. The opposite party no 1 assured the complainant that the mother would be alright within few days and further asked the complainant to bring his mother again after two weeks. The opposite party no 1 ignored painful condition of the mother of the complainant. However condition of the mother became critical then the opposite party no 1 was again called by the nurse. The opposite party no 1 then informed the complainant that the mother would be required to admit in hospital and also to undergo operation of the lungs. The complainant left the opposite party no 2 to arrange money for further medical treatment of the mother and came back around 8 pm in night. The complainant f