Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3627
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, CJ, Ms. Simarjot Kaur, J, Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, J
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dr.Amarjit Singh Rattan – Respondent
First Appeal No.666 of 2022 | CC No.306 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Bhupinder Kaur
For the Respondents: Sh.R.S.Mattu, Sh.M.S.Khillan
Medical negligence claims require clear evidence and expert testimony to substantiate allegations. The absence of such evidence undermines the complainant's case for compensation.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appeal against dismissal of complaint for medical negligence - The District Commission dismissed the complaint citing lack of evidence to prove negligence on part of the healthcare providers. The appellant alleged that post-surgery complications leading to patient death were due to negligence. (Paras 1, 12, 42)
(B) Medical Negligence - Determination of negligence in the healthcare context requires expert testimony. The absence of medical professional evidence weakens claims of negligence. The court reaffirmed the requirement for demonstrable proof before asserting medical negligence. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's mother underwent surgery for an abdominal cyst but suffered complications post-surgery, leading to her death. It was alleged that the initial operation caused injury and subsequent surgeries failed to address it correctly. (Paras 3-41)
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there was no evidence of negligence on part of the OPs as established by the inquiry report. (Paras 42-43)
Issues: Whether the OPs exhibited negligence leading to the patient's death? (Paras 24, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of substantial medical expert evidence to substantiate claims of negligence resulted in upholding the District Commission's order. (Paras 31, 33)
Result: Appeal dismissed and order of District Commission upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and the appeal context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of medical procedures and complications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents' defenses and the argument of no negligence. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. response from the third and fourth respondents. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's assessment and documentation review. (Para 12 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. definition and interpretation of medical terminologies related to surgery. (Para 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 7. court's rationale on the burden of proof for medical negligence. (Para 32 , 33 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. final ruling on the lack of evidence for negligence. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 9. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ludhiana (in short ‘the District Commission’) whereby the Complaint of the Complainant had been dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant before the District Commission are that in the month of November 2011, the Complainant had taken his mother Karnail Kaur to OP No.1 as she had complained of pain in her abdomen. After examination, OP No.1 had diagnosed that there was a cyst in the abdomen which could be removed by way of Laparoscopic surgery. OP No.1 had informed that it would be painless surgery and the patient would be discharged immediately thereafter. As a result, OP No.1 had admitted Karnail Kaur on 09.11.2011. She was operated upon in the morning of 10.11.2019 and was discharged on the same day in the evening. However, on the intervening night of 11.11.2019, the patient Karnail Kaur again felt severe pain in her abdomen. The Complainant contacted OP No.1 and informed him about the condition of Karnail Kaur. OP No.1 had responded casually that she had been prescribed pain killers which should be repeated. However, still the pain was there. Thereafter, the Complainant had taken his mother to hospital of OP No.1, who had admitted Karnail Kaur and administered injection due to which she fell asleep. OP No.1 and OP No.2 had again operated upon Karnail Kaur on 12.11.2014, just to cover up the previous negligent/careless surgery conducted by OP No.1. During the said surgery, OP No.1 had punctured her Bowel Pipe. At the time of second surgery, OP No.1 had pulled the Bowel Pipe of Karnail Kaur in second surgery as a result thereof she became unconscious. Thereafter, the condition of Karnail Kaur had started to deteriorate. The Complainant had requested to OP No.1 to refer her to Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana. OP No.1 had reluctantly agreed to refer the patient to OP No.3. Later on the Complainant came to know that the Bowel Pipe was punctured by the OP No.1 while performing Laparoscopic Surgery which was carried out negligently and carelessly. This negligence had caused severe infection in her body. The patient had to be put on ventilator support which was not readily available with OP No.3. As a result, the attending doctor of OP No.3 had referred her to Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital i.e. OP No.4.
4. It was alleged that the Complainant himself had taken his mother to OP No.4 on 13.11.2011. After examination of the patient, the doctors of the OP No.4 said that there was no hope of her survival due to wrong treatment/surgery. In order to save Karnail Kaur, the doctors had put her on ventilator but she could not survive and expired on 14.11.2011. She had expired due to carelessness and negligence committed by OP No.1 doctor/hospital at the time of first surgery during which the OP No.1 doctor had punctured her Bowel Pipe with Laparoscopic rays. Due to the said complication, infection had spread in her body. OP
