Case title – Najrul Seikh vs Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr
Case no. – Civil Appeal No(S). OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 17437 of 2018]
Decision on – February 22, 2024
Quoram – Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Facts of the case
The Appellant is the father of Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy. The appellant unable to finance the surgery at Disha Eye Hospital approached the Respondent 1 and 2 (Doctor and Megha Eye Centre). After the surgery, by Respondent No. 1, Irshad began experiencing irritation, pain, and blood clotting with no relief in his condition.
Respondent No.1 eventually referred them to the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (‘RIO’). The Appellant and his son visited the RIO a month later and were informed that it was a case of Retinal detachment leading to permanent loss of vision in the right eye, caused due to the faulty operation conducted by Respondent No. 1.
The Appellant alleged negligent cataract surgery by the Respondents and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) relied on the uncontroverted expert evidence provided by Dr. Anindya Gupta and held that there was deficiency in the medical services provided by the Respondents and thereby, directed a payment of INR 9,00,000 as compensation.
However, the order of the DCDRC was set aside by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’). The SCDRC relying on the report of the West Bengal Medical Council found contributory negligence on part of the Appellant in visiting the RIO a month later.
Thereafter, a revision petition preferred by the Appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the ‘NCDRC’) was also dismissed which was subsequently impugned before this Court.
Submission of the Parties
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the NCDRC failed to notice a selective appreciation of evidence by SCDRC and completely ignored the report provided by Dr. Gupta regarding the lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care provided by the Respondents.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the contrary, submitted that both the NCDRC and the SCDRC have correctly placed reliance on the decision of the Medical Council to arrive at their conclusions regarding the absence of negligence on part of the Respondents.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court upon perusal of the orders of NCDRC and the SCDRC found merit in the Contention of the Appellants. The Court stated that DCDRC was right in holding the respondent for deficiency in services. Moreover, through the evidence of Dr. Gupta, it noted that a nexus was established between the lapses in post-operative care and the development of loss of vision after the operation, thereby held the expert evidence of Dr. Gupta as valid.
The Court pointed out that despite the presence of evidence regarding the negligence of the Respondents, both the SCDRC and the NCDRC failed to consider it and relied only on the report of the Medical Council. On a perusal of the Medical Council report, the court noted that it did not delve into the nuances of pre-operative and post-operative care.
The Court held that the report of the Medical Council can only be relevant in determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, but not determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum.
The Court, with the aforementioned findings, set aside the orders of SCDRC and the NCDRC. It upheld the decision of DCDRC and directed the respondents to comply with the order of the DCDRC within one month from the date of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
