Medical Negligence Claim Fails Due to Lack of Proof, Continued Patient-Doctor Relationship: Rajasthan State Consumer Commission - 2025-08-20

Rajasthan State Consumer Commission Dismisses Medical Negligence Appeal, Cites Lack of Evidence and Patient's Continued Trust in Doctor

Bikaner, Rajasthan – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a District Forum order dismissing a medical negligence complaint against an ENT surgeon, Dr. Rakesh Rawat. The Commission, comprising Judicial Member Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal and Member Mr. R.N. Saraswat, ruled that the complainant, Kiran Sirohi, failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish negligence during an ear surgery that allegedly resulted in facial paralysis.

The Commission highlighted the complainant's continued treatment with the same doctor for two years post-surgery and the findings of an expert medical board as crucial factors in its decision.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Kiran Sirohi against Dr. Rakesh Rawat. Ms. Sirohi consulted Dr. Rawat for a discharging ear and was advised to undergo a Modified Radical Mastoidectomy (MRM) surgery, a procedure to treat a chronic ear infection (Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media with Osteitis). The surgery was performed on September 19, 2009.

Shortly after being discharged, Ms. Sirohi alleged she experienced complications, including hearing loss and facial paralysis on her left side. She claimed that another doctor, neurologist Dr. Arvind Vyas, informed her that the paralysis was caused by a nerve being cut during the operation. Based on this, she accused Dr. Rawat of medical negligence and filed a complaint seeking compensation with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner.

Arguments from Both Sides

Complainant's Arguments (Kiran Sirohi): -

The facial paralysis and hearing loss began immediately after the surgery performed by Dr. Rawat, indicating a direct causal link to his actions.

- A neurologist, Dr. Arvind Vyas, allegedly stated that the paralysis was due to a severed nerve, which constitutes clear negligence. -

Dr. Rawat failed to provide adequate post-operative care and misled her about the cause of her symptoms for two years.

Respondent's Arguments (Dr. Rakesh Rawat): -

The surgery was necessary to treat a serious infection that posed a risk of spreading to the brain. -

The patient and her husband were informed of all potential risks, including facial paralysis, and gave signed consent before the procedure. -

The patient did not show any signs of paralysis immediately after the surgery or at the time of discharge. -

The complainant did not adhere to the prescribed follow-up schedule and sought treatment from multiple other doctors. -

A police FIR filed by the complainant was closed after an investigation, and a multi-specialty Medical Board, which included the same neurologist Dr. Vyas, concluded that there was no medical negligence. The board suggested the paralysis might be due to Bell's Palsy, a viral condition.

Commission's Key Observations and Reasoning

The State Commission meticulously reviewed the evidence and upheld the District Forum's findings. The judgment rested on several key points:

1. Burden of Proof: The Commission reiterated the legal principle that the burden to prove medical negligence lies squarely on the complainant. Ms. Sirohi failed to produce any credible evidence, such as an expert affidavit from Dr. Vyas or medical literature, to substantiate her claim that a nerve was cut during the surgery.

2. Expert Medical Board Opinion: The court gave significant weight to the report of the Medical Board, which exonerated Dr. Rawat. Critically, the board included Dr. Arvind Vyas, the same neurologist whose alleged verbal opinion formed the basis of the complainant's case. The board's official report found no evidence of a severed nerve or negligence, directly contradicting the complainant's primary allegation.

3. Patient's Conduct Post-Surgery: The Commission found the complainant's actions after the operation to be inconsistent with a belief of negligence. The judgment notes: > "After the operation, the complainant showed the patient to many doctors and again, continuously sought treatment from the opposite party Dr. Rawat, thereby maintaining her faith in Dr. Rawat's medical skills and expertise." The fact that Ms. Sirohi continued to receive treatment from Dr. Rawat for nearly two years after the alleged incident significantly weakened her claim of negligence and lack of trust.

4. Absence of Corroborating Evidence: The MRI report did not indicate any nerve damage. Furthermore, the criminal case initiated by Ms. Sirohi via an FIR was closed by the police and the Final Report (FR) was accepted by the magistrate's court, which also relied on the Medical Board's findings.

Final Decision

Concluding that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of Dr. Rakesh Rawat, the State Commission found no reason to interfere with the District Forum's well-reasoned order.

The appeal filed by Kiran Sirohi was dismissed, and the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner, dated January 1, 2018, was affirmed.