Summary
The consumer commissions could not determine medical negligence by relying mechanically on a Medical Council report while ignoring uncontroverted expert evidence of pre-operative and post-operative lapses and their link to the child’s loss of vision. The Supreme Court restored the District Commission’s finding of deficiency in service and directed compliance with its compensation order.
Issues
- Whether the State and National Consumer Commissions could rely exclusively on the Medical Council’s report without addressing uncontroverted expert evidence and findings of lapses in the child’s care.
- Whether the record supported the District Commission’s finding that the doctor’s pre-operative and post-operative care fell below the required standard and caused the loss of vision.
Provisions considered
- Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The father’s complaint alleging deficiency in medical services was considered by the consumer commissions. The Supreme Court held that the appellate forums had to evaluate the evidence in its totality, including the uncontroverted expert evidence, rather than treat the Medical Council report as determinative. (¶¶ 3, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- A Medical Council report may be relevant to a consumer forum’s assessment of deficiency in service, but it is not determinative, particularly where it conflicts with evidentiary findings and uncontroverted expert evidence. Appellate consumer fora must examine the evidence in its totality and cannot mechanically rely on that report while ignoring material expert testimony. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The District Commission’s findings, supported by uncontroverted expert evidence, established lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care, including delayed review and failure to address an abnormal vision rating. The evidence linked the post-operative lapses to the development of retinal detachment and loss of vision. The duty of care did not end with the surgery. (¶¶ 12, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; the State and National Consumer Commission orders were set aside, the District Commission’s finding of deficiency in service was affirmed, and the respondents were directed to comply with its compensation order within one month.