Failure to Prove Negligence with Expert Opinion Leads to Overturning of ₹10 Lakh Compensation: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission - 2025-07-27

State Commission Overturns ₹10 Lakh Compensation, Rules No Medical Negligence by New Bellevue Hospital

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned a District Commission order that had directed New Bellevue Hospital and its doctor to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation for alleged medical negligence. In a significant ruling, the bench of Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma (Member) held that the complainants failed to substantiate their allegations with expert medical opinion, a crucial requirement in such cases.

The Commission allowed the appeal filed by the hospital, setting aside the District Commission's order and dismissing the original complaint filed by the family of the deceased patient.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Rameshwari Tandon and Rakesh Tandon, the mother and brother of the deceased, Chhotelal Tandon. Mr. Tandon, aged 29, was admitted to New Bellevue Hospital on November 12, 2016, with severe neck pain and weakness in his arms.

Following an MRI, the hospital's doctor, Dr. Brajesh Patel, advised surgery. A cervical spine plating surgery was performed on December 29, 2016. However, the patient's condition deteriorated post-surgery. The family alleged that the hospital was negligent, claiming that frozen blood was transfused, causing the patient's body to swell.

On January 6, 2017, the patient underwent a second emergency surgery for a suspected ruptured intestine. His condition remained critical. Despite the family's requests for a referral to a better-equipped facility, the hospital allegedly delayed. Finally, on January 10, 2017, Mr. Tandon was referred to Apollo Hospital but tragically passed away en route.

The Bilaspur District Consumer Commission had found the hospital guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, primarily for failing to provide the patient's medical records to the family post his demise. It awarded a compensation of ₹10,00,000 to the family.

Arguments Before the State Commission

Appellant's (New Bellevue Hospital) Arguments: - The hospital's counsel argued that the District Commission's order was erroneous and ignored crucial facts. - It was contended that the patient's death was due to post-operative complications, not negligence. An autopsy report cited complications as the cause, and the police did not file any criminal charges against the doctor. - The hospital admitted to not providing medical records initially due to the tense situation and a police complaint filed by the family, but submitted all relevant documents at the appellate stage. - They asserted that all necessary pre-operative tests were conducted and the patient received standard medical care from qualified doctors. Crucially, they highlighted that the complainants had not produced any expert evidence to prove that the line of treatment was medically unsound.

Respondents' (Complainants) Arguments: - The complainants' counsel supported the District Commission's order, reiterating that the hospital's negligence, including delayed referral and improper post-operative care, directly led to the patient's untimely death. They maintained that the failure to provide medical records was a clear deficiency in service.

Commission's Findings and Legal Precedents

The State Commission meticulously reviewed the documents submitted by the hospital on appeal, including the patient's admission records, surgical notes, and the doctors' qualifications. The Commission observed that the patient was admitted in a serious condition and that both surgeries were preceded by necessary diagnostic tests.

The Commission placed significant weight on the absence of expert testimony from the complainants' side to prove their allegations of negligence. It cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Research Centre , to underscore the principles for establishing medical negligence.

The court reiterated from these precedents that: - Negligence cannot be presumed merely because a treatment is unsuccessful or a patient dies. - A doctor is not liable for an error of judgment, provided they have followed a practice acceptable to the medical profession. - The standard of care required is that of an ordinary competent practitioner in that field, not the highest possible skill.

The Commission noted:

"Although the complainants have accused the appellant doctor of medical negligence and deficiency in service, they have not presented any expert opinion to prove this accusation... In contrast, the appellant doctor is a recognized and skilled physician, and it is proven from documentary evidence that all tests of the patient were done before the operation..."

The Commission concluded that while the dispute over the non-issuance of medical records was understandable given the police involvement, the core allegation of medical negligence remained unproven.

Final Decision

Based on its analysis, the State Commission ruled that the District Commission had erred in its decision. The appeal filed by New Bellevue Hospital was allowed, the order of the District Commission was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.