The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s decision awarding compensation to a minor patient for alleged medical negligence in a ptosis surgery performed by Dr. Neeraj Sud at PGI, Chandigarh. The Court found that mere adverse outcomes post-surgery do not indicate negligence in the absence of evidence showing failure to meet medical standards. The judgment reinstates the State Commission's dismissal, emphasizing the importance of expert evidence in establishing negligence and endorsing the "Bolam Test" for assessing medical standards in negligence cases.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Application in cases of medical negligence.
2. Principle of Medical Negligence - Legal standards for determining negligence in healthcare, as guided by the "Bolam Test" and the Supreme Court decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.

Background

• Para 2-4: Appeals filed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order awarding compensation to the complainants for medical negligence in a ptosis surgery performed on a minor at PGI, Chandigarh.

Facts of the Case

• Para 6: The complainants, a father and son, alleged negligence in a ptosis surgery on the son, aged six, by Dr. Neeraj Sud, resulting in worsened eye condition post-surgery, including severe ptosis and double vision.
• Para 7-8: The complainants sought compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 and Rs. 4,55,000, arguing that the treatment was negligent and caused additional medical expenses and suffering.

State Commission Findings

• Para 9: The State Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of negligence or failure to meet medical standards.
• Para 10: The Commission ruled that Dr. Sud had the necessary qualifications and followed acceptable medical practices.

NCDRC Judgment

• Para 10-12: The NCDRC reversed the State Commission’s decision, attributing negligence to Dr. Sud based on post-operative complications but without independent evidence of negligence.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Para 14: The Court highlighted the three elements of medical negligence: (i) duty to exercise care, (ii) breach of duty, and (iii) consequential harm.
• Para 15-16: It emphasized that a doctor is not negligent if they exercise due care and follow accepted practices, even if the outcome is unfavorable.
• Para 17: Reaffirmed Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and the Bolam Test, which holds that deviation from medical norms must be shown through expert testimony to prove negligence.

Ratio and Judgment

• Para 19: Determining negligence requires clear evidence of a breach of medical standards, which the complainants did not provide.
• Para 20-21: The Supreme Court reinstated the State Commission's dismissal, as the complainants failed to substantiate the claim with evidence of negligence.

Subjects: Medical Negligence, Ptosis Surgery, Consumer Protection Act, Bolam Test, NCDRC, PGI Chandigarh