Summary
The Court agreed that the decision to operate was not itself shown negligent, but found that the separate plea about choosing a nursing home without foreseeably necessary ICU facilities had not been examined or seriously contested. After 23 years of litigation it awarded Rs 5 lakh against the surgeon rather than remanding. It also requested measures for faster consumer dispute disposal and use of ADR.
Issues
- Whether the decision to operate and the separate choice of an unequipped venue were properly assessed.
- What relief and systemic consumer-forum measures were appropriate.
Held
- Medical negligence requires failure to exercise reasonable professional skill, rather than merely an unsuccessful outcome or a better alternative. Civil and criminal negligence standards differ; the consumer-forum expert-opinion prerequisite in Martin F. D’Souza had been disapproved in V. Krishan Rao as inconsistent with the binding framework. (¶ 11–13)
- The National Commission was justified in finding that the decision to operate did not by itself establish negligence. It and the State Commission had, however, failed to examine the distinct allegation that foreseeable postoperative ICU needs made the chosen nursing home unsuitable. (¶ 14–15)
- As that plea was not seriously contested and litigation had lasted 23 years, the Court directed opposite party No. 1 to deposit Rs 5 lakh with the State Commission for the appellant’s heirs within three months, without interest if timely, and at 12% annually if deposited later, rather than ordering a fresh adjudication. (¶ 15)
- The National Commission was requested to formulate a monitoring action plan for speedy disposal and consider video conferencing for expert witnesses. Consumer fora were to invoke the Section 89 CPC settlement mechanism in light of its purpose, with suitable National Commission directions and possible coordination with legal-services authorities. (¶ 16–20)
Result
Appeals disposed of; surgeon directed to deposit Rs 5 lakh within three months for the appellant’s heirs, with 12% interest upon late deposit; consumer-forum efficiency and ADR measures requested.