Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Medical Negligence Case — Insufficient Evidence of Negligence Found. Citing lack of medical evidence, the court overturned the NCDRC's finding of negligence against the doctors and hospital.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved three appeals against an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which found the appellants guilty of medical negligence and directed compensation. The appellants included a doctor and a hospital, with a third appeal from an insurance company. The patient, Smt. Jasbeer Kaur, was diagnosed with kidney stones and underwent surgery. Following a second surgery, she suffered a cardiac arrest and later died. The claimants alleged negligence due to poor tolerance to anaesthesia and lack of proper medical equipment. The appellants contended that informed consent was obtained and that the surgeries were conducted as per medical standards. The NCDRC ruled against the appellants, citing negligence. However, the Supreme Court found that the NCDRC's conclusions were not supported by medical evidence, emphasizing that not every unsuccessful treatment equates to negligence. The court noted that the first surgery was uneventful and that the second surgery was permissible under medical practice. The absence of expert medical evidence to substantiate claims of negligence led to the conclusion that the NCDRC's order was unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's order and allowed the appeals, with no costs awarded.

Headnote

A) Medical Negligence - Standard of Care - Requirement of Medical Evidence - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - The court held that mere allegations of negligence without medical evidence are insufficient to establish liability. The NCDRC's conclusion lacked the necessary medical backing to substantiate claims of negligence against the doctors involved (Paras 11-23).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants were negligent in the treatment of the patient leading to her death.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's order dated 13.08.2009 in O.P. No.289 of 1997, allowing the appeals and ruling that the findings of negligence were not supported by medical evidence.

Law Points

  • medical negligence
  • informed consent
  • res ipsa loquitur
  • Bolam test
  • standard of care
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (09) 297

Civil Appeal No.7380 of 2009

2021-09-07

A.S. Bopanna, Hemant Gupta

Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana, New India Assurance Company Limited, Hospital

Joginder Singh & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against NCDRC's order finding medical negligence.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to overturn the NCDRC's finding and compensation order.

Filing Reason

Claim of medical negligence leading to patient's death.

Previous Decisions

NCDRC found appellants guilty of negligence and awarded compensation.

Issues

Whether the appellants were negligent in the treatment of the patient Whether informed consent was properly obtained

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that informed consent was obtained and that the surgeries were conducted according to medical standards. Respondents contended that the appellants failed to exercise due care and that the second surgery was forced upon the patient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that allegations of medical negligence must be substantiated by medical evidence, and not every unsuccessful treatment equates to negligence. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies only when negligence is glaringly obvious.

Judgment Excerpts

The NCDRC's conclusion lacked the necessary medical backing to substantiate claims of negligence against the doctors involved. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered as death due to medical negligence unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect.

Procedural History

The NCDRC found the appellants guilty of medical negligence and directed compensation. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

Acts & Sections

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 2(1)(g)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 165-A IPC for Bribery of Customs Appraiser. Confidential Notings on Central Intelligence Unit File Protected by Official Privilege Under Section 124 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Not Rel...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Bank Murder Case — Circumstantial Evidence Upheld.