LexBHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS. versus MADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1875 : 2024 INSC 1035 Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal(D) by Lrs. v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare (Civil Appeal No(s). 14816-14817 of 2024) 19 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the Respondent was guilty of medical negligence in the post-operative care of the Appellant; (2) Whether the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) contributed to the infection and absolved the Respondent of liability. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Failed Cataract Surgery – Loss of Vision – Post-Operative Care – Expert Medical Opinion favouring the Appellant considered – No evidence available on record to shift the blame to Appellant: Held: The Appellant underwent cataract surgery performed by the Respondent – Post-surgery, the Appellant visited the Respondent five times within a week, reporting severe eye pain, oozing pus, headaches, and vision loss – Despite these complaints, the Respondent repeatedly re assured the Appellant that the surgery was successful and prescribed painkillers – Seeking further medical advice, the Appellant consulted two other doctors and was admitted to Wanawadi Military Hospital, where he was diagnosed with endophthalmitis (a severe eye infection) – Urgent surgery was performed to prevent potential brain damage, but the Appellant lost complete vision in his right eye – The Appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Pune, alleging medical negligence and seeking compensation – The District Forum dismissed the complaint due to lack of expert evidence – The State Consumer Commission of Maharashtra partly allowed the appeal, holding the Respondent guilty of medical negligence and awarding compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reversed the State * Author 1876 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Commission's decision, holding that the Appellant had changed his own bandage, leading to the infection, and thus, the Respondent was not negligent – That the Respondent failed to diagnose and treat the infection in the Appellant's eye despite multiple complaints of pain and vision loss – This Hon’ble Court rejected the NCDRC's finding that the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) caused the infection, noting that there was no evidence brought on record to support this claim – The Court restored the State Commission's judgment, directing the Respondent to pay the Appellant compensation of Rs. 350,000 within two months, with a 12% per annum interest rate applicable in case of default. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 15] Res-Ipsa-Loquitor – Loss of vision result of medical negligence in post-operative care – Corrective steps not undertaken causing loss of vision: Held: The Appellant's severe post-operative symptoms and the Respondent's failure to diagnose or treat the infection indicated negligence – Held, that the negligence was evident from the facts and that the Respondent failed to detect the infection and clear the same in time despite several complaints by the Appellant – The infection was diagnosed by the three doctors at the Military Hospital, but it was too late by then and the Appellant had to undergo evisceration of his right eye leading to loss of vision – This was a blatant result of medical negligence by the respondent in post- operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the Respondent, were applied – Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor applied. [Paras 18, 23] List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Medical Negligence; Eye surgery; Endophthalmitis; Cataract; Expert Medical Opinion. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 14816-14817 of 2024 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1877 Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal(D) by Lrs. v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in REVP Nos. 768 and 2443 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Ramjeet Sharma, Ankit Acharya, Ms. Ritu Chaudhary. Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 in Revision Petition No. 768 of 2016 filed by the responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.