No Medical Negligence If Doctor Follows Standard Practice; Expert Evidence Overrules Complainant's Allegations: Maharashtra State Consumer Commission - 2025-01-09

State Consumer Commission Overturns Negligence Ruling Against Urologist, Cites Expert Evidence and Standard Medical Practice

Mumbai, Maharashtra – The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned a District Commission order that held a senior urologist, Dr. Shrikant Badwe, liable for medical negligence. In a judgment delivered on June 27, 2024, the Commission, led by President Justice S.P. Tavade and Member Poonam V. Maharshi, ruled that the complainant failed to establish any lapse in the standard of care provided by the doctor.

The Commission emphasized the critical role of expert medical evidence and concluded that Dr. Badwe had followed accepted medical protocols while performing an AV Fistula surgery on a high-risk patient who later developed gangrene and passed away. The appeal was allowed, and the original complaint was dismissed.

Case Background

The case was initiated by Sandhya Deshpande following the death of her husband, Ashok Deshpande, in 2014. Mr. Deshpande, a patient with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart ailments, underwent an Arteriovenous (AV) Fistula surgery—a procedure to create vascular access for dialysis—performed by Dr. Badwe on December 31, 2013.

Approximately two weeks later, Mr. Deshpande developed complications, including gangrene in his hand, and he passed away on February 19, 2014. The District Consumer Commission had previously found Dr. Badwe negligent, ordering him to pay over ₹14 lakh in compensation and expenses to the complainant.

Complainant's Allegations vs. Doctor's Defense

Arguments of the Complainant (Sandhya Deshpande):

* Primary Allegation: Dr. Badwe negligently performed the surgery without conducting a mandatory pre-operative blood sugar test on her husband, a known diabetic.

* Consequence: The operation was allegedly performed on a patient with high blood sugar, which directly led to the development of gangrene.

* Further Claims: The complainant alleged that Dr. Badwe failed to diagnose the post-operative complications correctly and provided fabricated, handwritten medical notes only after the incident.

Arguments of the Appellant (Dr. Shrikant Badwe):

* Standard Procedure Followed: Dr. Badwe, a urologist with over 29 years of experience, countered that a pre-operative Haemo Gluco Test (HGT) was conducted, revealing a blood sugar level of 188 mg%. He presented the original nurse's register to the State Commission to substantiate this claim.

* Expert Opinions: He submitted affidavits from four distinguished medical experts, including leading nephrologists and urologists. These experts affirmed that a blood sugar level of 188 mg% was acceptable for the surgery, especially in a chronic kidney disease patient where very tight glucose control can be risky.

* J.J. Hospital Committee Report: A crucial piece of evidence was a report from an expert committee of the Grant Government Medical College & Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals. Convened at the request of the police during their investigation, the committee concluded there was "no lapse in due care and application of skill from Dr. Shrikant Badwe in this case."

* Withholding of Evidence: Dr. Badwe argued that the complainant had deliberately withheld detailed treatment papers from other hospitals where her husband was treated post-surgery, which could have shed light on how the gangrene developed.

Court’s Reasoning and Legal Principles

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the principles of medical negligence, referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments like Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab . The Commission noted that a doctor cannot be held negligent if they have followed a practice accepted by a reasonable body of medical professionals.

In its reasoning, the Commission highlighted several key points:

"The complainant has failed to produce expert evidence to establish the negligence of opponent... On the other hand, the opponent has produced on record report of Expert Committee headed by Dr. M.A.K. Siddiqui... The said Committee gave clean chit to the opponent."

The Commission found the evidence presented by Dr. Badwe, particularly the original nurse's register and the expert testimonies, to be credible and decisive. It criticized the District Commission for casually overlooking this evidence.

"The District Commission has not considered the report of Department of Urology, Grant Medical College, J.J. Group of Hospitals... The District Commission has also not considered the affidavits of Expert Doctors. The District Commission has casually overlooked the evidence of expert doctors on the ground that they belonged to the professions of the opponent. The said observation is not proper and correct."

Final Decision and Implications

The State Commission allowed Dr. Badwe's appeal, setting aside the District Commission's order and dismissing the consumer complaint. The judgment reinforces the legal standard that medical negligence must be proven with concrete evidence and expert opinion, and that a doctor is not liable merely because a treatment did not yield the desired result, especially in complex cases with high-risk patients. The ruling underscores that adherence to standard operating procedures and the support of peer medical opinion are strong defenses against allegations of negligence.