MRS. KALYANI RAJAN versus INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 17-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 97 : 2023 INSC 921
97
CASE DETAILS
MRS. KALYANI RAJAN
v.
INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10347 of 2010)
OCTOBER 17, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the respondents have committed 
negligence in not providing proper post-operative medical care to the patient 
and, accordingly, whether the NCDRC has committed any illegality while 
dismissing the complaint fi led by the appellant herein.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complainant-appellant, husband 
(patient) was suff ering from Chiari Malformations (Type II) with 
Hydrocephalous – Patient underwent neurosurgery after which he 
was shifted to a private room – However, same day around 11:00 p.m., 
patient suff ered a heart attack and consequent to which he died after 
few days – Complainant alleged apropos lack of medical care from the 
time he was shifted to the private room – The NCDRC rejected the 
complaint of the complainant – Propriety:
Held: It is not the case of the complainant that respondent no.2-doctor 
was negligent in performing the Neurosurgery – Thus, the entire case of 
the complainant was about lack of proper post-operative medical care – 
On this score, the allegation is that the patient should have been shifted to 
ICU instead of shifting him to a private room – The material available on 
the record demonstrates that as per the standard practice, all patients who 
show no signs of complications in the recovery room and have no post or 
pre-operative complications are sent to their rooms – The symptoms, which 
emerged after the deceased was discharged from the Operation Theatre, 
were not the symptoms, which typically precede a cardiac arrest – Since, 
the deceased did not have any known or identifi able heart ailments, it was 
impossible for the respondents to have prior knowledge that the patient 
98  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
may develop cardiac problem after few hours of the successful surgery – 
Also, materials placed before the Court show that patient was examined 
by doctors after his surgery and all required steps were taken – There is 
no evidence put forth by the complainant to establish that heart attack 
suff ered by the patient had any connection with the operation in question 
or that it was on account of negligent post-operative care – Furthermore, 
affi  davit of professor of neurosurgery in AIIMS and Senior Consultant in 
Neurology at respondent no.1-Hospital opined that the record did not show 
any abnormality at the operated site and the complications suff ered by the 
patient were totally unrelated to the surgery conducted by respondent no. 
2 – Therefore, the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part 
of Respondents in taking post-operative care and the fi ndings in this regard 
recorded by the Commission does not suff er from any illegality or perversity. 
[Paras 23,25,32]
Principle/Doctrine – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability of:
Held: In so far as the applicability of principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, in 
the fact and circumstances of the case, it is to bear in mind that the principles 
get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent 
behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made 
– For applying the principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ 
is present to establish the allegation of negligence – Strong incriminating 
circumstantial or documentary evidence is required for application of the 
doctrine – In the instant case, there was no mistake in diagnosis or a negligent 
diagnosis by respondent no. 2 – In the absence of the patient having any 
history of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiac problem, it is diffi  cult to foresee 
a possible cardiac problem only because the patient had suff ered pain in the 
neck region. [Para 31]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal and 
Others 2021 SCC online SC 1149; Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar 
Mukherjee and Ors. [2009] 13 SCR 1 : (2009) 9 SCC 221:  – relied on.
Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq [2009] 3 SCR 273 : (2009) 3 SCC 
1; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307 
: (2005) 6 SCC 1:  – referred to.
99
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10347 of 
2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2010 of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redress

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.