Unsuccessful treatment outcome does not automatically indicate negligence- Consumer Court relief to plastic surgeon
Consumer Forum Exonerates Plastic Surgeon from Charges of Medical Negligence
Chandigarh: Setting aside the District Consumer Court's order, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently exonerated a Chandigarh-based plastic surgeon from charges of medical negligence during a liposuction procedure.
The patient had alleged that the results of the liposuction surgery were not satisfactory and that the doctor had failed to provide the required medical records.
After being directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to refund Rs 46,000 and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 7,500 as litigation costs to the complainant, the plastic surgeon, Dr. Kalia, had filed an appeal against the ruling before the State Consumer Court.
The history of the case goes back to June 16, 2019, when Dr. Kalia performed a liposuction procedure on the complainant at Novena Clinic, Chandigarh. It was alleged by the patient that the liposuction surgery did not yield the expected results and that the doctor had failed to provide necessary medical records. According to the complainant, these instances amounted to medical negligence and a deficiency in service.
Even though the District Consumer Court had ruled in favour of the complainant, the State Commission, led by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), ruled that he failed to provide substantial evidence of medical negligence, Indian Express has reported.
Further, the State Commission emphasized that an unsuccessful treatment outcome did not automatically indicate negligence unless there was clear proof of deviation from medical standards.
The Commission also cited precedents from the Supreme Court to note that the burden of proof laid with the Complainant, which was not met satisfactorily. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the qualifications possessed by Dr. Kalia and agreed that he adhered to the medical protocols. It pointed out that the complainant did not present crucial evidence, such as photographs, during the original proceedings, which weakened his case.
Accordingly, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allowed the appeal by Dr. Kalia. It also stated that there was no illegality or deficiency in service on his part.
