Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 9089
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT, DR. SRIKANTH 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, In-Person
For the Respondents: DR.SMT. MALTI BHOJWANI, In-Person
Medical negligence must be supported by substantial evidence and mere allegations are insufficient to prove liability against medical professionals.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical Negligence - District Commission found negligence in treatment and awarded compensation - Appeals filed by doctors against finding and complainants for enhancement of compensation - Doctors denied negligence; appeal dismissed - The complainants failed to prove that negligence caused death, and allegations were not supported by medical evidence. (Paras 1-34)
(B) Legal standard for negligence - Court reiterated that absence of proof or mere allegations does not suffice to claim negligence; standard of care must only denote what a reasonably competent doctor would do in similar circumstances. (Paras 28-32)
Facts of the case:
The complaint arose from the treatment of a patient who developed severe complications post-surgery, alleged negligence by the operating doctors, and eventual death, leading to claims of inadequate care.
Findings of Court:
The District Commission’s finding of negligence was unsubstantiated, and records showed compliance with standard treatment protocols.
Issues: Whether the doctors were negligent in their treatment and whether any negligence led to the patient’s death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied heavily on the burden of proof lying on the complainant to establish negligence which was not adequately demonstrated in this case, thus rejecting the complaints against the doctors.
Result: Appeals allowed; complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of medical negligence appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. patient's treatment history and alleged negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence review and assessment of treatment adherence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. establishment of standards for medical negligence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
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 26.01.2002 with complaint of acute pain in lower abdomen. On clinical examination and investigations found Tubo
