- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Medical Council's Report Can't Be...
Medical Council's Report Can't Be Determinative To Contradict Consumer Forum's Evidentiary Findings On Medical Negligence : Supreme Court
Yash Mittal
10 March 2024 3:24 PM GMT
The Supreme Court observed that a report of the Medical Council cannot be determinative to contradict the factual findings entered by a Consumer Forum regarding medical negligence.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man, a BPL card holder, whose 13-year-old son lost complete vision in his right eye following a cataract surgery undertaken by the respondents (Dr.Sumit Banerjee and Megha...
The Supreme Court observed that a report of the Medical Council cannot be determinative to contradict the factual findings entered by a Consumer Forum regarding medical negligence.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man, a BPL card holder, whose 13-year-old son lost complete vision in his right eye following a cataract surgery undertaken by the respondents (Dr.Sumit Banerjee and Megha Eye Clinic, Bardhdhaman, West Bengal). Although the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) allowed his claim for compensation, the State Commission (SCDRC) set aside the DCDRC order after relying upon a report by the Medical Council. The NCDRC also affirmed the SCDRC order, following which the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Report Of Medical Council Not Relevant If Contradicted By Consumer Forum's Findings
Accepting the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court observed that both the SDCRD and NCDRC failed to rely on the uncontroverted testimony of the expert evidence which stated that there was a deficiency of services on the part of the Doctor while treating the patient, and due to which the patient lost his vision.
Further, rejecting the Respondents' contention that the report of the medical council is sufficient to exonerate the doctor of the medical negligence charged, the Supreme Court stated that although the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining a deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum.
“Under these circumstances, both the SCDRC and the NCDRC ought to have examined the evidence in totality, especially since this plea was urged by the Counsel for the Appellant in both the forums. Instead, both the forums have mechanically and exclusively relied upon the Medical Council report and reiterated its findings without any reference to the evidence of Dr. Gupta. While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining a deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum. In these circumstances, the appellate forum is tasked with the duty of undertaking a more thorough examination of the evidence on record. On this failing alone, the orders of the SCDRC and DCDRC deserve to be set aside.”, the Supreme Court observed.
“In fact, the holding of the DCDRC is strengthened not only by the report of the Medical Council which states that development of Retinal Detachment is not uncommon in cases of blunt trauma as in the case of Irshad, but also by the admission of the Respondent No. 1 itself that management and rehabilitation of traumatic cataract for a child is very difficult, unpredictable, and prone to complications. That being the case, and in view of the established principle of law that in cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the DCDRC that there was a deficiency in the medical services provided by the Respondents to the Appellant's son.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
The Court upheld the DCDRC's direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the complainant. Counsel For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Adv. Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhiraj Chaudhary, Adv.
Case Title: NAJRUL SEIKH VS. DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 219
Click Here To Read/Download The Order
