V. KISHAN RAO versus NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANOTHER.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 08-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 5 S.C.R. 1 
V. KISHAN RAO 
v 
NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANOTHER. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2010) 
MARCH 8, 2010* 
. [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
A 
8 
Medical Negligence - Expert Evidence - Requirement c 
of - Held: Expert evidence is not required in all medical 
negligence cases - Expert evidence is necessary when Fora 
comes to the conclusion that case is complicated or such that 
it cannot be resolved without assistance of expert opinion -
Fora cannot follow mechanical or strait jacket approach -
0 
Each case has to be judged on its own facts - Negligence. 
s. 2(1)(g) - Medical Negligence/Deficiency in service -
Patient suffering intermittent fever with chill admitted to 
hospital - Condition worsened critically and shifted to other 
hospital, where patient was declared dead - Complaint by E 
husband before District Forum alleging deficiency in service 
- Award of two lakhs compensation - Set aside by State 
Commission as also National commission holding that there 
was no expert evidence to prove negligence - On appeal, 
held: It was a case of wrong treatment - Test conducted by F 
other hospital for malaria found positive - Wide/ test for 
·typhoid found negative - Patient treated for typhoid and not 
malaria by hospital where patient admitted when complaint 
was of intermittent fever with chill - As a result condition of 
patient deteriorated and became very critical and was G 
removed to other hospital where she could not be revived -
She had no pulse, no BP and in an unconscious state with 
pupils dilated and had to be put on a ventilator-'- Thus, expert 
Judgment Recd. ON. 4.5.2010. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
evidence was not necessary to prove medical negligence. 
Negligence: 
Medical negligence - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - · 
Applicability of - In medical negligence cases - Held: 
B Qoctrine is applicable where negligence is evident -
Complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing 
(res) proves itself - Respondent has to prove that he has 
taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence 
- Doctrines - Torts. 
c 
Medical Negligence - Requirement of expert evidence 
in medical negligence cases - Directions in D'souza's case 
'to have expert evidence in all cases of medical negligence 
whether binding - Held: Directions rendered in D'souza's case 
0 
ignoring the prold.§ions of the governing statute and earlier 
larger Bench decision on the point - Thus, not a binding 
precedent in cases of medical negligence before consumer 
Fora - Precedent. 
Medical negligence - Bo/am test - Held: Lays down the 
E standards for judging cases of medical negligence. 
Evidence Act, 1872: ss. 61, 64, 74 and 75 - Comp/amt 
before consumer forum alleging medical negligence -
Opposite party alleging that hospital records proved without 
F following the provisions of the Evidence Act -
Held: 
Provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable -
Complaints before consumer forum are to be tried summarily. 
Judgment/Order: 'Per incuriam' -
When judgment 
rendered 'per incuriam' - Held: When a judgment is passed 
G ignoring the provisions of the governing statute and earlier 
larger Bench decision on the point, it is rendered 'p'rilr 
incuriam' . 
. The appellant's wife was suffering from intermittent 
H fever with chill and was admitted in the respondent no. 1 
V. KISHAN RAO v. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY 
3 
HOSPITAL & ANR. 
hospital. She underwent certain tests but the tests did not A 
reveal malaria. The patient did not respond to the 
medicines administered to her and her condition 
deteriorated day by day. She was finally shifted to Y 
hospital in a very precarious condition and was virtually 
clinically dead. The Y hospital issued a death certificate B 
which disclosed that the patient died due to cardio 
respiratory arrest and malaria. The appellant filed a 
complaint against the respondent no. 1 hospital before 
the District Forum alleging negligen~e in treating his wife. 
The doctor R of the respondent no. 1 hospital deposed C 
that the appellant's wife was not treated for malaria. The 
District Forum held that the patient was suffering from 
malaria but was treated for typhoid and as such was 
subjected to the wrong treatment, and awarded 
compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The respondent no. 1 filed 0 
an appeal. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal- -
Commission allowed the appeal holding that there was · 
no expe

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