Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit has held that:

“The grant of compensation to remedy the wrong of medical negligence is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitution in integrum. The said principle provides that a person is entitled to damages which should as nearly as possible get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.”

Facts

In the present case, Pooja Sharma- Respondent No.2 /Complainant had to undergo cesarean section and the baby-Respondent No.1 was born pre-term at 32 weeks. The doctor advised for intensive
care of the baby at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital- Appellant No.1.

At the time of admission, the baby was diagnosed as “32 weeks pre-term AGA with HMD”; the baby was discharged after 4 weeks. No advice was given to the mother of baby/complainant to have the ROP (Retinopathy of Prematurity) test carried out on the baby, who was born prematurely. Post-discharge, Complainant brought the baby for follow up check-in multiple times and doctors held to baby’s condition to be stable and no advice or recommendation for ROP was given in any of the visits.

Later, Complainant noticed abnormal visual responses in the baby and when she went to eye care hospital- the baby was diagnosed with ROP Stage 5 in both eyes.

Initially, a consumer complaint was filed by respondent/complainant claiming compensation of ₹1,30,25,000 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. The National Commission directed the Medical Board, AIIMS to give an expert opinion on the matter. The National Commission on examining of evidence concluded that neither the ROP screening was performed nor was any advice for follow up of ROP given to the complainant. The National Commission, therefore, awarded Rs. 64,00,000 to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the above order, hospitals and doctors filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision of Court

In cases of medical negligence, Courts often seek expert opinion in the matter. In the present case also, expert opinion was sought and was provided by the Medical Board, AIIMS to court.

Supreme Court observed that AIIMS Report records that ROP test was conducted, and no ROP was detected. Further, the second point in AIIMS report records that the baby was not taken for a subsequent check-up after discharge to Pediatrics OPD.

Apex Court held a report to be fallacious and misconceived and refused to rely upon it. It is a settled law that court is not bound by the evidence of an expert- which is advisory in nature.

“Court must derive its own conclusion based on medical records, and whether the standard protocol was followed in the treatment of the patient.”

Court held that complainants have discharged the burden of proof by making out a clear case of medical negligence on part of Hospital and pediatrics doctors. It further enhanced the compensation awarded by the National Commission by Rs. 12,00,000. Thus, total Rs. 76,00,000 (seventy-six lakhs) were awarded to the Respondent.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sparsh Jain