Vague Allegations cannot be Grounds for establishing Negligence: Delhi Consumer Court exonerates Ophthalmologist

New Delhi: Observing that vague allegations against a doctor is not enough to establish medical negligence, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently exonerated Ophthalmologist from charges of medical negligence while conducting Cataract Surgery on a patient who lost his vision following damages in the Pupil and Retina.

The State Consumer Court noted that the Complainant had not challenged the competency of Dr. Jain and therefore, it noted, "In the present case, the Complainant has vaguely alleged that the Opposite Party committed negligence in operating him, due to which his eye got damaged. However, this alone cannot be a ground for holding the Opposite Party liable for Medical Negligence since sometimes despite the best efforts, the patient may not favourably respond to a treatment given by doctor, due to which the treatment of a doctor may fail."

Dismissing the complaint, the Commission observed, "Since there exists no evidence to substantiate the submission of the complainant, we are of the view that there exists no Negligence on part of the Opposite Party in the present case."

The history of the case goes back to 2012, when the complainant had approached Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi for check-up of his eyes. Since the doctors found Cataract (Safed Motia) in the right eye of the complainant, they advised for surgery. 

Following this, the complainant went to Ex- Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), who after investigation referred him to Sharp Singh Centre at premises of New Delhi based Medfort Hospital.

Consequently, the surgery for removal of Cataract was performed by Dr. Siddharth Jain and after the surgery the patient got discharged. In the evening, the doctor removed the dressing to check the eye sight of the complainant. However, the complainant could not see anything. Thereafter, the doctor informed the patient that it could take 2-3 days for his vision to come back. The doctor also prescribed medicines/ Eye Drops and advised the patient for follow-up.

After two days, when the complainant approached the doctor, he was once again assured by the doctors that it would take more time to get his vision back. Following this, the complainant made multiple visits to the doctor but no improvement could be seen regarding his eyesight.

On 14.08.2012, Dr. Jain referred the complainant to Dr. Rajesh Sinha in AIIMS, New Delhi. After examining the patient, Dr. Rajesh changed the medicines numerous times to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant again consulted ECHS, who referred him to Dr. Chaudhary Eye Clinic and Laser Vision, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. After examination, the complainant was informed that both his Pupil and retina was damaged.

When the Complainant pointed out about this fact to Dr. Jain, who advised him to undergo minor surgery from Dr. Rajesh Singa in AIIMS. Following this, Dr. J. S Tatiyal (AIIMS) conducted DSAEK (Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty) on the right eye of the complainant, which was ineffective. On 30.04.2013, another operation of Pupil was done by Dr. J. S Tatiyal and the complainant got slight vision of his right eye.

Therefore, the complainant alleged negligence against Dr. Jain and prayed for a lump sum compensation of Rs 22,00,000 with an interest @24% per annum.

On the other hand, Dr. Jain claimed that the surgery had been performed by a team of doctors and he was only a member of teh doctors' team at Medfort hospital. He therefore argued that since the said the Hospital has not been made a party in the complaint, it should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

It was further contended by the doctor that the complainant was operated/ examined by various doctors/ specialists i.e. Chaudhary Eye Centre & Laser Vision, AIIMS, Dr. Alka Pandey, Dr. Pallavi, Dr. J. S Tatiyal after the said surgery, therefore, they all are proper and necessary parties to the present complaint.

Before considering the merits of the case, the State Consumer Court discussed the scope and extent of negligence and for this, the Consumer court referred to the SCDRC order in the case of Seema Garg & Anr. vs. Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Anr. In these orders, the State Consumer Court had held that where the allegations of negligence are levelled against medical professionals, a doctor cannot be held negligent as long as he performs the duties with reasonable skill and competence.

Referring to these orders, the bench noted that "In the present case also, it will have to be ascertained whether there was any lack of skill and competence on the part of the operating doctor and/or any omission to do what was actually required in the present facts and circumstances."

The State Commission noted that the Complainant had not challenged the competency of Dr. Jain. Taking note of this, the Commission observed, "The Complainant has not challenged the competency of the Opposite Party, hence, the first part of the aforesaid para stands answered, that there was no lack of competence on the part of the Opposite Party."

Further it was noted by the State Consumer Court that the Complainant had contended that Dr. Jain had committed negligence while removing the Cataract from his right eye, which allegedly damaged both his Pupil and Retina.

At this outset, the Commission referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh and Ors., wherein the top court while taking into consideration its orders in Jacob Mathew v. State of punjab and Anr. and Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, had observed, "it is clear that in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. To indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered."

Referring to the Supreme Court order, the Commission noted,

"From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that only the failure of the treatment is not prima facie a ground for Medical Negligence and in order to attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur, Negligence i.e. the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, should be clearly evident from the record."

Holding that vague allegation alone cannot be a ground for establishing medical negligence, the State Consumer Court noted,

"In the present case, the Complainant has vaguely alleged that the Opposite Party committed negligence in operating him, due to which his eye got damaged. However, this alone cannot be a ground for holding the Opposite Party liable for Medical Negligence since sometimes despite the best efforts, the patient may not favourably respond to a treatment given by doctor, due to which the treatment of a doctor may fail."

"The Complainant has failed to establish that there was breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or would abstain from doing or that the treatment which was given to the Complainant was not acceptable to the Medical Profession at that specific time period," further noted the Consumer Court.

Therefore, dismissing the allegation of medical negligence against the doctor, the State Commission observed,

"Since there exists no evidence to substantiate the submission of the complainant, we are of the view that there exists no Negligence on part of the Opposite Party in the present case."

Apart from this, the Commission also dismissed the plea for non-joinder of necessary party. In this context, it noted,

"It is clear from the record that the opposite party was working with the Medfort Hospital and the hospital, being an employer of the opposite party, is vicariously liable for the acts of his employees. Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he suffered complications because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor/or hospital. Since the hospital is a necessary party in the present case and the same has not been made party in the present complaint, the present complaint is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party."

To read the order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-state-commission-no-medical-negligence-183672.pdf

Also Read: Failure of treatment not ground for negligence: Consumer Court exonerates Delhi based gynaecologist, hospital