Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1642
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT, DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER
LALCHAND TELWANI – Appellant
Versus
DR.SMT. MALTI BHOJWANI – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/13/468 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2013 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: LALCHAND TELWANI
For the Respondents: DR.SMT. MALTI BHOJWANI, DR. D. K. BANSAL, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
Medical negligence must be proven with adequate evidence; failure to provide evidence results in dismissal of claims.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical negligence - The complaints arise from an alleged negligent procedure leading to injury and death - The opposing parties assert that the procedures followed were appropriate and care was taken - The District Commission ruled in favor of complainants, awarding compensation for negligence. (Paras 14, 34)
(B) Burden of Proof - The onus to establish negligent performance lies with the complainant - The failure to provide adequate evidence confirming negligence resulted in a verdict of non-liability for the respondents. (Paras 33)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff's wife consulted the opposite parties for severe abdominal pain; post-surgery she faced complications allegedly due to negligence, asserted to culminate in her death. After an inter-doctor dispute, the complainants claimed damages against the doctors. (Paras 3-10)
Findings of Court:
Evidence submitted failed to establish negligence by the doctors; hence, the complaint was dismissed. (Paras 34)
Issues: Main issues included the adequacy and appropriateness of medical intervention and whether the physicians exhibited negligence. (Paras 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere failure of treatment does not equate to negligence without demonstrable evidence reflecting malpractice or error in judgment by the medical professionals involved. (Paras 32)
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patient's background and treatment history. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details on the surgical procedure and physician's rationale. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. responses from accused parties denying negligence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's assessment of evidence and application of law. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. summary judgment and dismissal of negligence claims. (Para 32 , 34) |
ORDER
(Passed On 20.05.2025)
Per say Justice SunitaYadav Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.575/2004 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants has been allowed.
2. First Appeal No.232/2013 is filed by the opposite party no.1 and 2 doctors for setting aside the impugned order whereas the First Appeal No.468/2013 is filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation. Since both appeals arise out of same order, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.232/2013 unless otherwise stated.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the complaint before the District Commission are that the complainant no.1's wife and complainant no.2 & 3's mother Smt. Kavita Talwani having complaint of acute lower abdomen pain consulted the opposite party no.1-Dr. Malti Bhojwani first time on 26.01.2002 and the opposite party no.1-doctor after getting some investigations started treatment. Again on 06.03.2002 she visited the hospital and the opposite party no.1-doctor after examination and investigations prescribed medicines. Thereafter on 21.03.2002 again the patient approached the opposite party no.1-doctor and was admitted as indoor patient in opposite party no.1's hospital on the same day i.e. on 21.03.2002, where she underwent an operation on 22.03.2002. It is alleged by the complainant that during operation the operating surgeon opposite party no.1-informed the complainants that by mistake large intestine was cut and therefore the opposite party no.1 and 2 doctors called Dr.B.M.Loya but he was busy therefore, the opposite party no.3 Dr. Ashok Nigam was called. It is further submitted that the doctors told that colostomy is necessary to save the patient and informed that tumor was removed and the large intestine was packed with sponge to close the bleeding from large intestine.
4. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1 doctor without treating the patient discharged her on 03.04.2002 when she had no relief. Thereafter the complainants took the patient for post-operative follow ups but when there was no relief, they took the patient to Adarsh Hospital, Bhopal of Dr. B.M.Loya, where the patient admitted on 01.06.2002. On 06.06.2002 Dr. B. M. Loya performed surgery and found that a sponge was fixed near large intestine. Dr. Loya informed that in order to stop the bleeding from the large intestine sponge was put and after repairs, sponge used to taken out but the earlier surgeon left the sponge in abdomen due to which the sponge strangulated the large intestine which was to be repaired first. Thereafter he treated the patient till 02.07.2002 and discharged on 03.07.2002 stating that now her treatment is not available at Bhopal and advised to go to Indore or Mumbai for further treatment. Thereafter the patient was taken to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai where she was admitted and Dr. S.K.Mathur told the complainants that there are 50-50% chances of survival and treatment will continue for one and half month. On 13.07.2002 Dr. Mathur performed surgery and patient remained in ICU. On 01.09.2002 the patient died in ICU. The complainants therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite party no.1 & 2-doctors and the insurance company.
5. The opposite party-1 doctor in her reply before the District Commission admitted that for the first time the patient was brought to her on 26.01.200
