9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. In Jacob Mathews [ 2005 (8) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT ] this Court held that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that Dr. Neeraj Sud or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as PGI , Chandigarh. 3. The complaint of the complainants i.e. Complaint Case No.29/1998 regarding medical negligence against Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI was dismissed by the State Commission vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2005. Aggrieved by the above decision, the complainants preferred appeal before the NCDRC. After remand in the first round, the matter again came up before the NCDRC wherein the present impugned order has been passed and the complaint has been partly allowed. The judgment and order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint has been set aside holding that Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI are jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as costs with 6% interest from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a minor operation which required lifting of the left eyelid a little to make it of the same size as the right eye but the said surgery was done in a most negligent manner. Instead of any improvement the condition of the eye further deteriorated post-surgery. 7. The complainants, thus through the complaint made to the State Commission claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the sufferings due to negligence of the doctor and a further sum of Rs.4,55,000/- towards the cost of the treatment, loss of studies etc. In defence, Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI admitted that the surgery was performed on 26.06.1996 by Dr. Neeraj Sud who is a qualified post-graduate in ophthalmology. He had three years of experience in eye surgeries including surgery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GI which showed that the patient before operation had proper 6/9 vision in both the eyes and was suffering from a moderate PTOSIS with no history of double vision. However, post-surgery, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated from moderate to severe and the vision of the patient also fell down from 6/9 in both eyes to 6/18. The patient also suffered from double vision post-surgery. Thus, the NCDRC held that the doctor was apparently negligent in not giving proper treatment and was also careless in not performing the repeat surgery. 11. Deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of the fact that the surgery performed or the treatment given to the patient was not proper or inappropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment. 15. A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that Dr. Neeraj Sud or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by Dr. Neeraj Sood was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties. 18. In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
