KUSUM SHARMA & OTHERS versus BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 10-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 685 
KUSUM SHARMA & OTHERS 
v. 
BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & 
OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI! JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
A 
B 
c 
Deficiency in Service - Claim for compensation - Death 
of patient in hospital - Allegation of medical negligence in 
conducting surgery and post surgical care - HELD: The 
doctor who performed the operation had reasonable degree 
of skill and knowledge - National Commission has rightly 0 
held him not guilty of negligence - Merely because the doctor 
chooses one course of action in preference to the other, he 
would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was 
acceptable to the medical profession - Tort - Negligence -
Difference between 'negligence and 'criminal negligence'. 
E 
Criminal Law: 
Criminal negligence -Medical negligence - Purpose 
behind holding a professional liable for his act or omission -
HELD: Is to make life safer and to eliminate the possibility of F 
recurrence of sucf? negligence in future - At the same time, 
courts have to be extremely careful /to ensure that 
professionals are not unnecessarily harassed otherwise they 
will not be able to carry out their professional duties without 
fear. - It is for the complainant to clearly make out a case of G 
negligence before a medical practitioner is proceeded against 
criminally - A medical practitioner would be liable only where 
his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonably 
1 
competent practitioner in his field - A mere deviation from 
685 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of 
negligence - Guidelines laid down - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.88, 92 and 370. 
The husband of appellant No. 1 was admitted in 
8 
respondent no. 1 hospital on 18.3.1990. A surgical 
operation for removal of an abdominal tumor, which was 
found to be n1alignant, was carried out on 2.4.199~ by 
respondent no. 3. As the flow of fluid did not stop, a 
second surgery was carried out on 23.5.1990. The patient 
was discharged on 23.6.1990 with an advice to follow up 
C and for change of the dressing. Some post operative 
complications were stated to have arisen and respondent 
visited a few other hospitals including the AllMS. On 
9.10.1990 the patient was again taken to respondent no. 
1-hospital where he died on 11.10.1990 on account of 
D 'pyogenic meningitis'. Thereupon the appellants filed a 
complaint uls 21 of the .. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
before the National· Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission claiming compensation for alleged 
deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part 
E of the respondents in the treatment of the deceased. The 
National Commission did not find any merit in the 
allegations and dismissed tlie complaint. Aggrieved, the 
claimants filed" the appeal. 
F 
1 
Dismissing the, appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the doctor, respondent 
no.3, who performed the operation had reasonable 
degree of skill and knowledge. The National Commission, 
which considered the medical literature and evidence of 
G eminent doctors of AllMS, rightly held respondent no. 3 
_not guilty of negligence. [Para 57] [711-C] 
H 
Spring Meadows Hospital & Another v. Harjot Ahluwalia 
through K. S. Ahluwalia & Another 1998 ( 2 ) SCR 428 = 
KUSUM SHARMA v. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL 687 
RESEARCH CENTRE 
(1998) 4 SCC 39 and Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. 
A 
Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr. 1969 SCR 206 =AIR 1969 
SC 128 ; State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra 2000 ( 3 ) SCR 
195 = (2000) 5 SCC 182 ; and Poonam Verma v. Ashwin 
Patel & Ors. 1996 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 671 = (1996) 4 SCC 
332 - referred to. 
B 
R. v. Lawrence, [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL); R. v. Caldwell 
1981(1) All ER 961 (HL); Bbfam v. Friern Hospital 
Management Committee (1957) I WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 
118; Roe and Wool/eyv. Minister of Health (1954) 2 QB 66; 
C 
Whitehouse v. Jordon & Another (1981) 1 All ER 267 ;Chin 
Keow v. Government of Malaysia & Anr. (1967) WLR 813; 
Hucks v. Cole & Anr. (1968) 118 New LJ 469; Hunter v. 
Hanley 1955 SLT 213- referred to . 
. 
Black's Law Dictionary; Halsbury's Laws of England D 
(Fourth Edition, Vol.30, Para 35), referred to. 
1.2. A clear distinction exists between "simple lack 
of care" incurring civil liability and "very high degree of 
negligence" which is required in criminal cases. As has 
E 
been held by this Court, whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.