One who alleges Medical Negligence, has to prove it, not the Doctor- NCDRC

Advertisement

Probable SMA-Type III.   Doctor B. Chandrasekhar Reddy also certified that the said disease had no specific treatment.

She then went to Medwin Hospital where, it was diagnosed that she had primary Hyperthyroidism due to Parathyroid Adenoma and required surgical excision for the same. She underwent surgery for the same

Allegations of the Complainant in short:

1. Her ailment had been wrongly diagnosed at Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd, without conducting adequate investigations and in fact, the Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type-III was not even possible at her age.

2.According to her, she was wrongly advised that the aforesaid disease was incurable and no medicine for its treatment was available.

Held :

1. The National Commission upheld the Judgment of state Commission which rejected the claim of the Complainant.

2.It is a settled legal preposition that the onus of proving the alleged negligence in the treatment of a patient lies with the person alleging medical negligence.

3.Admittedly, no doctor was examined by the complainants/appellants to examine the record pertaining to her treatment in Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. and give opinion as to whether there was any negligence in diagnosis of her ailment and in her treatment in the said hospital.

4.There is no quarrel with the legal proposition that a case of medical negligence can be made out even without producing the evidence of an expert. But, where in a particular case, the alleged negligence stands proved or not, would depend upon the facts of each case. The onus will always be upon the complainant to prove, whether by producing expert opinion or otherwise, that there was negligence at the hands of the doctor in the treatment of the patient.

5.There are no 2 opinions in case of a settled Law that a doctor should not merely go by the version of the patient regarding his symptoms, but should also make his own analysis including tests and investigations where necessary, but in present case The doctor had no reason to suspect the evidence of the investigations conducted at the previous hospital..

Thanks and Regards

(Adv. Rohit Erande)
Pune.

You can read the full judgement by clicking on the following link

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0/0/FA/380/2011&dtofhearing=2016-09-23