LexNAJRUL SEIKH versus DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1065 : 2024 INSC 184 Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2877 of 2024) 22 February 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents-doctors of all the charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery of complainant’s son leading to complete loss of vision in his right eye. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim for compensation – However, the State Commission and the National Commission set aside the order exonerating the respondents of all the charges of misconduct/ negligence – Correctness: Held: While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum – Both the State Commission and the National Commission ought to have examined the evidence in totality, instead, they mechanically and exclusively relied upon the Medical Council report and reiterated its findings without any reference to the evidence of the doctor – Appellate forum was tasked with the duty of undertaking a more thorough examination of the evidence on record, which they failed – Specific findings made by the District forum regarding lapses in duty of care by respondent No.1 vis-a-vis both pre-operative and post-operative standards for conducting a traumatic cataract surgery – Through the expert evidence of the doctor, a nexus was established between the lapses in post-operative care and the development of loss of vision after the operation, which remained uncontroverted – Holding 1066 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of the District forum is strengthened not only by the report of the Medical Council but also by the admission of the respondent No. 1 itself that management and rehabilitation of traumatic cataract for a child is very difficult, unpredictable, and prone to complications – Furthermore, in cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery, thus, the finding of the District forum that there was a deficiency in the medical services provided by the respondents to the complainant’s son affirmed – Order of the State Commission and the National Commission set aside. [Paras 12-16] List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Deficiency in service; Medical negligence; Compensation; Exonerating of the charges of misconduct/negligence; Medical Council report; Duty of care; Lapses in pre-operative and post-operative standards; Cataract surgery; Loss of vision; Deficiency of medical services. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2877 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 526 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Partha Sil, Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Chirag Joshi, Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Abhiraj Chaudhary, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Appellant before us, a BPL card holder, is the father of Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy who lost complete vision in his right eye [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1067 Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr. following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery undertaken by the Respondents. The complaint preferred by the Appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘DCDRC’) However, the order of the DCDRC was set aside by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’) and thereafter, the revision petition preferred by the Appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the ‘NCDRC’) was also dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2016, which is impugned before this Court. Brief Facts: 4. The facts, to the extent relevant, are that on 14.11.2006, Master Irshad sustained an injury in his right eye. The next day, he was ta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.