2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2951

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S. Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member, S. Oumasanguery, Member
R. Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Dr. Kumaran‘s Multi Speciality Hospital – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No: 05/2020

Medical negligence is established when a practitioner fails to exercise reasonable competence or standard of care. Once an initial case is made, the burden shifts to the medical provider to justify the procedure's adequacy through proper documentation and evidence of adherence to established surgical protocols.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in service - Laparoscopic cholecystectomy - Bile duct injury -Standard of care - Burden of proof. A medical professional is liable for negligence if they lack the requisite skill they profess or fail to exercise reasonable competence. Medical negligence is not inferred merely because of a bad outcome or failed surgery (Paras 31, 71).

(B) Medical records - Importance of documentation - Adverse inference - Failure to produce in-patient records and maintain detailed surgical records shifts the burden of justification to the service provider. Poor records constitute a lack of defense in malpractice claims (Paras 60, 62).

(C) Informed Consent - Requirements - A valid consent must be real, voluntary, and based on adequate information regarding the nature, risks, and alternatives of the procedure. Standardized pre-printed forms failing to disclose specific procedural risks or alternatives do not constitute fully informed consent (Paras 44, 45).

Facts of the case:
An individual underwent a laparoscopic procedure for gallstones at a medical facility. Following the surgery, the patient developed severe complications including persistent pain, vomiting, and bile leakage. Subsequent investigations and treatment at a tertiary specialized center revealed injury to the bile duct and biliary system. The complainant alleged that the surgeon lacked sufficient training and experience, failed to conduct necessary pre-operative tests, did not provide informed consent, and performed the surgery with substandard care, leading to further physical suffering and financial loss.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the surgeon failed to adhere to standard protocols and did not have adequate training for complex laparoscopic procedures. The documentation provided was insufficient, and the consent process was procedurally flawed. The court drew an adverse inference against the service providers for their failure to produce the original in-patient records and for the lack of detailed procedure notes.

Issues: Whether the performance of the surgery amounted to medical negligence due to lack of skill, improper technique, insufficient pre-operative workup, and inadequate informed consent; whether the hospital is vicariously liable for the surgeon's actions.

Ratio Decidendi: Medical practitioners are expected to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care. Once a patient demonstrates prima facie evidence of improper care resulting in injury, the burden shifts to the medical provider to prove that standard procedures were followed. Failure to maintain comprehensive medical records and adequately inform the patient renders the provider liable for deficiency in service.

Result: Complaint allowed. The medical facility and the operating surgeon were held liable for compensation and litigation costs.