The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had found Dr. Neeraj Sud and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh, guilty of medical negligence. The bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal ruled that the complainants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish medical negligence. As a result, the court restored the order of the State Commission that had earlier dismissed the complaint.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a surgery performed on a minor patient, Jaswinder Singh, who was diagnosed with congenital ptosis (drooping of the eyelid). On June 26, 1996, Dr. Neeraj Sud, then a Senior Resident at PGI, performed corrective surgery on Jaswinder Singh’s left eye. The complainants, Jaswinder Singh (through his father) and his father, alleged that the surgery led to a deterioration of Jaswinder’s vision, reducing it from 6/9 in both eyes to 6/18, along with other complications like double vision. They claimed Rs. 15 lakh as compensation for alleged medical negligence.
The State Commission, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that there was no negligence or carelessness in Dr. Sud’s treatment and dismissed the complaint. The NCDRC, however, partially reversed this decision in 2011, finding Dr. Sud and PGI liable for a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh plus Rs. 50,000 as costs, prompting the present appeal.
Key Legal Issues
The appeals raised significant legal questions regarding medical negligence:
1. Actionable Negligence in Medical Cases: Whether a doctor could be held liable merely because a treatment or surgery did not yield the desired outcome.
2. Standard of Proof: The necessity for concrete evidence to prove that a doctor failed to exercise reasonable skill and care.
3. Application of the Bolam Test: Whether Dr. Sud’s actions were in accordance with established medical norms and whether any deviation constituted negligence.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court carefully examined the legal principles related to medical negligence and noted the following key observations:
1. Absence of Evidence: The court underscored that actionable negligence requires proof of three elements: a duty to exercise due care, a breach of that duty, and consequent damage. The complainants, however, did not present concrete evidence to show that Dr. Sud breached the standard of care or that his actions deviated from accepted medical practice.
2. Application of the Bolam Test: The court applied the Bolam Test, a well-known legal standard in medical negligence cases. According to this test, a doctor cannot be considered negligent if their treatment aligns with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals. The court emphasized that Dr. Sud possessed the requisite qualifications and expertise to perform the surgery, and there was no material to prove that he failed to exercise reasonable skill.
3. No Direct Causation Established: The court highlighted that mere deterioration of the patient’s condition post-surgery is not sufficient to prove negligence. The judgment noted, “Deterioration of a patient’s condition post-surgery, by itself, does not establish actionable negligence unless evidence indicates a failure to exercise due skill.”
4. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Inapplicable: The bench stated that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the principle that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence) could not be applied automatically in this case. The complainants failed to demonstrate how the surgery or the post-operative care was improperly administered.
5. Restoration of the State Commission’s Order: The Supreme Court found the NCDRC’s findings to be based on insufficient evidence and accordingly restored the State Commission’s order dismissing the complaint. The court concluded, “A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he fails to exercise reasonable skill, which was not proven in this case.”
Parties Involved
– Appellants: Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI, represented by Advocate Geeta Ahuja.
– Respondents: Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and his father, represented by Advocate Ramesh Chander.
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 (Dr. Neeraj Sud & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh & Anr.)
– Related Appeal: Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012 (Jaswinder Singh & Anr. vs. Dr. Neeraj Sud & Anr.)
