Whereby the complaint filed by the appellant and proforma respondent No. 3 under Section 2 (c)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986[for short, ‘the Act’] was rejected. (Para 1)
The grievance of complainant-appellant is that the deceased was not attended to by any doctor from neurosurgery team who had operated the deceased after he was shifted into the private room till 11.00 P.M. After such major surgery, instead of shifting to a private room, the deceased should have been shifted to the Intensive Care Unit[for short, ‘ICU’]. (Para 4)
The crucial issue to be decided is whether the respondents have committed negligence in not providing proper post_operative medical care to the patient and, accordingly, whether the Commission has committed any illegality while dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein. (Para 22)
It is significant to notice that the patient did not have any history of diabetes or hypertension or any cardiac problem. Therefore, it was difficult for treating doctors including the duty doctor or the hospital to assume that the patient may suffer cardiac arrest and moreover, the patient had also not complained of pain in any other part of the body except neck region. As per the medical record, the patient complained of sweating only around 09:00 p.m. on which Dr. Tyagi spoke to the patient. (Para 27)
In so far as the applicability of principles of Res Ipsa Locutor, in the fact and circumstances of the case, it is to bear in mind that the principles get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made. For applying the principles of Res Ipsa Locutor, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ is present to establish the allegation of negligence. Strong incriminating circumstantial or documentary evidence is required for application of the doctrine. (Para 29)
The case in hand stands on a better footing, in as much as there was no mistake in diagnosis or a negligent diagnosis by Respondent no. 2. In the absence of the patient having any history of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiac problem, it is difficult to foresee a possible cardiac problem only because the patient had suffered pain in the neck region. (Para 31)
For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part of Respondents in taking post operative care and the findings in this regard recorded by the Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. (Para 32)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 352 SC
[2023 INSC 921]
Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 10347 of 2010-Decided on 17-10-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-352-SC.pdf