Failure in treatment not a ground of medical negligence: Delhi Consumer court relief to Dentist
New Delhi: Upholding the order of the District Commission, which had exonerated a dentist from charges of medical negligence while providing orthodontic treatment to a patient, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi has recently clarified that a doctor cannot be assumed to be negligent merely because of unsuccessful treatment.Taking note of the fact that the patient alleged...
New Delhi: Upholding the order of the District Commission, which had exonerated a dentist from charges of medical negligence while providing orthodontic treatment to a patient, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi has recently clarified that a doctor cannot be assumed to be negligent merely because of unsuccessful treatment.
Taking note of the fact that the patient alleged that she did not get any improvement in her jaw/teeth lining and did not get desired results, Delhi State Commission has observed, "However, this alone cannot be a ground for holding the Respondent 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."
Giving a clean chit to the doctor, the Commission further observed in the judgment, "Since the Appellant failed to show any evidence before the District Commission as well as before this Commission to substantiate the submission made by her, we are of the view that the Appellant has failed to establish any negligence on part of the Respondent in the present case."
Dismissing the appeal, the Commission mentioned in the order, "In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the Judgment dated 11.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Udyog Sadan..."
The matter goes back to 2000 when the Complainant had visited the clinic of Dr S.P. Aggarwal with a complaint of pain in one of her teeth. However, after examining her tooth, the doctor noticed that the front upper teeth were protruding forward and further the doctor was informed about the history of polyp (growth in nose) in the patient, along with the issue of recurrent cold and mouth breathing.
After examining the patient, the doctor suggested an orthodontic treatment and allegedly assured that the treatment would correct the protruding of her teeth and improve her jaw/teeth lying etc.
Allegedly, the treatment could not improve the jaw/teeth lining or the facial look of the complainant and rather it distorted her teeth/jaw lining which also led to a distortion of her facial bone and worsening of facial look. It was further alleged that the upper and lower jaw of the patient started striking at each other and one of her two front teeth started protruding outward. The patient also tried wearing plates and it did not help either and allegedly led to other complication.
In her complaint, the patient alleged that despite paying more than Rs 2,10,000 as cost of treatment and making more than 50 visits to the clinic of the doctor, the treatment could not improve anything and rather it caused irreparable damages and inury to her teeth and jaw lining. Therefore, alleging the doctor guilty of unfair trade practice and professional misconduct, the complainant had approached the District Commission and sought compensation of Rs 15,21,000.
After considering the matter, the District Commission had held that there was no medical negligence on the part of the doctor and exonerated him. Challenging the order, the complainant approached the Delhi State Consumer Court.
While considering the issue, the State consumer Court referred to its previous order in the case of Seema Garg & Anr. vs. Superintendent, Manohar Lohia Hospital & Anr. and the Apex Court order in the case of Kusum Sharma and Ors. vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors. to discuss the scope and extent of Negligence with respect to Medical Professionals.
Referring to these orders, the Commission observed, "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 Commission observed that the Appellant has not challenged the competency of the operating doctor and opined that "there was no lack of competence on the part of the Respondent."
While considering the question if there was any omission to do any act on the part of the doctor, the Commission noted that the Complainant had contended that the doctor had acted negligently while treating her due to which the complainant could not get any improvement in the jaw/teeth lining.
At this outset, the Commission referred to Supreme Court orders in the case of Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh and Ors., Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr. and Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq.
Referring to these orders, the consumer court 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."
The consumer court pointed out that the Appellant has vaguely alleged that the doctor had committed negligence in operating/treating the Appellant and due to this she did not get any improvement in her jaw/teeth lining and also failed to get the desired results.
"However, this alone cannot be a ground for holding the Respondent 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. It is further noted that the Appellant 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 Appellant was not acceptable to the Medical Profession at that specific time period," observed the Commission.
"This Commission cannot presume that the allegations in the Appeal are inviolable truth even though they remained unsupported by any evidence," it further noted.
Upholding the order of the District Commission, the State Consumer Court noted,
"Since the Appellant failed to show any evidence before the District Commission as well as before this Commission to substantiate the submission made by her, we are of the view that the Appellant has failed to establish any negligence on part of the Respondent in the present case."
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-consumer-court-210085.pdf
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd