P.G. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH CHANDIGARH versus JASPAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 29-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 889 
P.G. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH 
A 
CHANDIGARH 
v. 
JASPAL SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7950 of 2002) 
MAY 29, 2009 
8, 
(D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical negligence -
Patient with 50% bum injuries - Transfusion of mismatched c 
blood at hospital - Deterioration of condition, leading to death 
- Complaint alleging medical negligence against hospital 
and its staff- Forums below holding hospital and its staff liable 
to pay compensation - Interference with - Held: Not called 
for -
Hospital's breach of duty in mismatched blood 
/ 
D 
transfusion contributed to the death of the lady - Wrong blood 
transfusion is an error which no hospital/doctor exercising 
ordinary care would have made - It is not an error of 
professional judgment but a sure instance of medical 
.,_ 
negligence. 
E' 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether forums below were justified in 
~ 
holding that appellant-PG! hospitai and its attending 
i"-
doctor/staff were negligent in transfusing wrong blood 
F 
group to complainant's wife which resulted in her death. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In civil law, the term negligence is used 
for the purpose of fastening the defendant with liability G 
' 
of the amount of damages. To fasten liability in criminal 
law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that 
of negligence enough to fasten liability for damages in 
civil law. {Para 12] (897-C] 
··~ 
889 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. With regard to the professional negligence, a 
professional may be held liable for negligence if he was 
not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed 
to have possessed or, he did not exercise, with 
reasonable competence .in the given case the skill which 
B he did possess. The standard to le applied for judging, 
whether the person charged has been negligent or not; 
would be that of an ordinary person exercising skill in that 
profession. It is not necessary for every professional to 
possess the highest level of expertise in that branch 
c which he practices. [Para 15] [897-G-H; 898-A-B] 
1.3. In the medical negligence actions, the burden is 
on the claimant to prove breach of duty, injury and 
causation. The injury must be sufficiently proximate to 
the medical practitioner's breach of duty. In the absence 
D of evidence to the contrary adduced by the opposite 
party, an inference of causation may be drawn even 
though positive or scientific proof is lacking. [Para 20] 
[899-C-D] 
E 
1.4. The patient got burn injuries to the extent of 50% 
on March 30, 1996. She was initially treated at an Hospital 
in Ludhiana for about 20 days. Her condition improved 
satisfactorily. She wa~ admitted to PGI, Chandigarh on 
April 19, 1996. The available material placed before the 
F State Commission shows that at the time of her 
admission, she was taking medicine orally and passing 
urine; 75% of eschar was removed by May 1, 1996. Her 
condition had substantially improved at PGI before May 
20, 1996 and she had no signs of septicemia. It was only 
G after mismatched blood transfusion B+ on two 
consecutive days, that she became anemic (her 
hemoglobin level was reduced to 5 per gram) and her 
kidney. and liver were deranged. It is true that her 
hemoglobin was brought up in few days but her 
condition otherwise got deteriorated. Although she 
H 
+-
P.G. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH 891 
CHANDIGARH v. JASPAL SINGH 
survived for about 40 days after mismatched blood A 
transfusion but from that it cannot be said that there was 
no causal link between the mismatched transfusion of 
blood and her death. Wrong blood transfusion is an error 
which no hospital/doctor exercising ordinary care would 
have made. Such an error is not an error of professional 
B 
judgment but in the very nature of things a sure instance 
of medical negligence. The hospital's breach of duty in 
" mismatched blood transfusion contributed to her death, 
if not wholly, but surely materially. Mismatched blood 
transfusion to a patient having sustained 50% burns by c 
itself speaks of negligence. Therefore, in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the death 
of wife of complainant no. 1 was not caused by the 
breach of duty on the part of the hospital and its 
attending staff. The view of the National Commission is 
D 
concurred with with as it does not suffer from 

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