Supreme Court Restores Compensation Against Operating Surgeon in Medical Negligence Case. Low Platelet Count Surgery Held Unreasonable Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Nand Kishore Prasad, filed a consumer complaint after his 15-year-old son Sanjay Kumar died following surgery at Kurji Holy Family Hospital. The son was admitted on 10.11.1995 with abdominal pain, fever, and hemorrhage in both eyes. Despite a platelet count of 35,000/cu.mm (normal 1.5-4 lakhs), surgery was performed on 11.11.1995 to remove round worms. The patient died on 16.11.1995 at PMCH. The State Commission found the hospital and operating surgeon negligent, awarding Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 respectively. The National Commission absolved the surgeon, calling him 'wee bit negligent' and warning him. The Supreme Court restored the surgeon's liability, holding that operating with such low platelets without evidence of immediate necessity was unreasonable and constituted medical negligence. The court also upheld the compensation amount as just, applying the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Headnote

A) Medical Negligence - Standard of Care - Unreasonable Decision - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court held that operating on a patient with a platelet count of 35,000/cu.mm (normal 1.5-4 lakhs) without evidence of life-saving necessity constituted unreasonable professional conduct, not mere 'bit negligence', and the surgeon could not escape liability. (Paras 12-14)

B) Compensation - Restitutio in Integrum - Just Compensation - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court affirmed the principle that compensation should restore the aggrieved to the position before the wrong, and upheld the SCDRC's award of Rs. 4,00,000 against the hospital and Rs. 2,00,000 against the surgeon with interest, rejecting the NCDRC's reduction. (Paras 15-16)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Operating Surgeon was negligent in performing surgery on a patient with low platelet count, and whether the compensation awarded was just.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The order of NCDRC absolving the Operating Surgeon is set aside. The compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 with 6% simple interest from the date of complaint imposed by SCDRC is restored.

Law Points

  • Medical negligence
  • Standard of care
  • Bolam test
  • Restitutio in integrum
  • Just compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (5) 76

Civil Appeal No. 4619 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 34834 of 2015)

2019-07-19

Hemant Gupta

Nand Kishore Prasad

Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Consumer complaint alleging medical negligence leading to death of a minor.

Remedy Sought

Compensation for medical negligence causing death of son.

Filing Reason

Death of son after surgery performed despite low platelet count.

Previous Decisions

State Commission awarded Rs. 4,00,000 against hospital and Rs. 2,00,000 against surgeon; National Commission absolved surgeon.

Issues

Whether the Operating Surgeon was negligent in performing surgery on a patient with low platelet count. Whether the compensation awarded was just and proper.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: Surgery with low platelet count was sheer medical negligence. Respondents: Surgery was a bona fide life-saving decision in critical condition.

Ratio Decidendi

A medical professional cannot escape liability for an unreasonable decision to operate when the patient's platelet count was critically low and there was no evidence that surgery was the only life-saving option. The threshold for unreasonableness is set with due regard to risks, but here the decision was not prudent.

Judgment Excerpts

In the absence of any evidence that the surgery was the only life saving option available at that time, the action to operate upon the patient cannot be said to be prudent decision. Thus, we find that it is a case of unreasonable decision of the Operating Surgeon to operate and not a case of 'bit negligent' so as to absolve the surgeon from the allegation of medical negligence.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission which awarded compensation against the hospital and operating surgeon. The surgeon appealed to the National Commission which absolved him. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petitions for Non-Compliance of Settlement in Joint Venture Dispute — Reciprocal Obligations Not Fulfilled by Either Party. Court finds no wilful disobedience as both Seth Group and Mittal Group failed to comply wit...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Employer's Appeal in Minimum Wages Case Due to Non-Joinder of Workers and Concurrent Findings of Fact. The Court upheld the orders of the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 directing payment of wages and penalty to ...