LexRAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL versus REGENCY HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 424 A RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL v. ),/' REGENCY HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002) 8 SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical negligence - Appellant diagnosed with T.B. infection - Operated upon - ).. c Multiple operations - Operations unsuccessful - Appellant filed complaint before National Commission; sought compensation - Complaint dismissed - On appeal, held: Appellant had filed all records of treatment before the Commission - Registry of the Commission, due to oversight, D did not send original records and X-Ray films to the expert '/I A neurologist who had been requested to offer his opinion on >- the surgery done on appellant- Due to non-availability of vital aryd important information, the expert neurologist was handicapped in giving his opinion - Appellant should not E suffer for the negligence of the Registry and also when the Commission itself stated in its judgment that supply of material to the expert neurologist could have enabled him to give a more complete report - Principles of Natural Justice ~- require that a fair opportunity should be given to the F complainant to prove his claim based on report of the expert - Since that opportunity was denied to appellant, order passed by the Commission cannot be sustained - Registrar of the - Commission directed to forward all records of treatment filed by appellant before the Commission to the expert concerned, G for his expert opinion - Commission to pass fresh order after receipt of expert opinion - Evidence Act, 1872- s.45. Appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from T.B. Infection in respondent no.1 hospital whereupon respondent no.2 doctor operated upon him. However, the H 424 RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL v. REGENCY HOSPITAL 425 l LTD. AND ORS. problem got aggravated on which another operation was A .._A performed upon the appellant, this time by respondent no.3. Even after the second operation, the infection was not cured and appellant was referred to another hospital whereat another operation was performed on the appellant which provided some relief to him but left him B handicapped. - The appellant filed complaint before the National -.ii Consumer Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3 and sought compensation. c The National Commission came to the conclusion that medical negligence was not proved against the respondents and dismissed the complaint. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that b ~ due to non-compliance of the order of National \> ~ Commission by the Registry of National Commission, the Commission did not have the benefit of expert opinion (of neurologist) to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether there was any negligence of the doctors who treated the appellant. The appellant contended that pursuant to an E interim order passed by the Commission, the appellant . ·~ had submitted all the records relating to his treatment and had requested the Registry of the Commission to forward the same to the expert neurologist, who had been requested to offer his opinion on the surgery done on the F appellant; however, the Registry did not send the documents furnished by the appellant to the expert and, therefore, the expert could not offer his opinion and thereby, the appellant was denied the benefit of having an opinion which would have proved his case before the G Commission. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Since ·medical science is complicated, H / 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ......... A expert opinion provides deep insight. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that .;.A evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. There is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific B question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of expert cannot be disputed. In order to bring . the - evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be "'-- c shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. [Paras 10, 11 and 13] [433-E-F; 433-H; 434-A-B- C;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.