CASE NAME: Dr. Rajnish Sharma & Anr. v. Mohd. Sameer
CASE NUMBER: FIRST APPEAL NO.- 166/2023
COURT: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
DATE: 17 April, 2026
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
FACTS
Mohammad Sameer (Respondent) was diagnosed with Urinary Stones (Ureteric Calculus) on the right side of the kidney. He was admitted for surgery at KK Surgical & Maternity Hospital (Appellants’ hospital). The first procedure, which took place under the care of Dr. Rajnish Sharma, was an endoscopy (a procedure in which a scope is inserted through a body opening via the urethra) and was accompanied by DJ stenting (the use of a stent to keep an opening in the urethra). After the second procedure to remove stones from the same site (with no pain relief), the complainant underwent independent testing, which reported a 17.23 mm enlarged stone in the same area as before. The District Commission held the hospitals/ doctors negligent for medical malpractice and ordered them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in damages with 6% interest, as well as Rs. 15,000 related to litigation. Dissatisfied, appellants filed the current appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether the District Commission erred in holding the Appellants liable for medical negligence.
- Whether a 17.2mm kidney stone could recur within 3.5 months of a successful removal.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Case Law: Martin F. D’Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq (AIR 2009 SC 2049).
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
The Appellants argued that the District Commission disregarded the medical expert opinion that, according to them, absolved them. They claimed that residual fragments and recurrent stones are quite common, that they strictly adhered to the standard procedure, and they characterised the 17.2 mm stone found during a later procedure as a new occurrence because the prior X-ray dated September 2016, showed the stone had been completely removed.
RESPONDENT
The Respondent argued that the hospital had failed to remove the stone, as confirmed by the two separate ultrasound examinations that occurred after the X-ray. He stated that the X-ray relied upon by the Appellant was fabricated in an attempt to conceal their substandard level of service.
ANALYSIS
In its analysis of expert medical opinions provided by doctors from Lok Nayak Hospital, the Commission found that although both endoscopy and DJ stenting are considered the standard of care, there were also significant discrepancies between the records of the Appellants’ procedures. The Commission did not find any operating theatre (OT) notes documenting anything about the operation and discovered a discrepancy between the Appellants’ X-ray report and the reported patient name.
Of primary importance to the Commission was the opinion of experts that it is highly improbable for an individual to produce a stone measuring 1.5 centimetres in only three months. The Commission stated that the Apex Court in the case of Martin F. D’Souza made it clear that specialist opinions must be the basis on which consumer agencies determine medical negligence; therefore, as the Appellants provided no medical literature or corroborating evidence that a 17.2mm stone could form in 3.5 months, the Commission found their defence unmeritorious.
JUDGEMENT
The commission’s decision was upheld on appeal, and costs were not ordered. Accordingly, the District Commission’s findings were supported, and the Appellants’ claims that there had been a recurrence of stones were not substantiated.
CONCLUSION
The Commission has reinforced the principle that medical practitioners are not automatically liable for their unsuccessful treatments. However, the use of alternative expert opinion evidence, together with factual evidence, can establish whether there was negligence. Where the defence is not supported by factual evidence, such as the alleged rapid recurrences of stones, that are not substantiated by scientific literature or corroborated by other medical evidence, an attack on a finding of deficiency in service will fail.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: VINEET SEERVI
Read the judgement copy below:
Dr. Rajnish Sharma & Anr. v. Mohd. Sameer
