State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Mohmad Hanif I Vadaliwala vs Shalby Hospital on 17 November, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 17 11 2021
Date of filing 24 10 2013
Duration 25 - 08
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 04
C.C. No. 91 of 2013
Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
On demise of Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
The legal Heirs:-
1. Jamilakhatun Wd/o.
Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
2. Dr. Mohmed Tahir S/o.
Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
3. Mohmed Iqbal S/o.
Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
4. Dr. Jainabbibi D/o.
Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala,
All residing at:
Thank God Building, Pologround,
Himmatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha, Gujarat. ...Complainants.
V/s.
1. The Administrator and Controller of,
Shalby Hospitals,
Opp. Karnavati Club, S.G. Road,
Ahmedabad -15, Gujarat.
2. Dr. Vikram I. Shah,
Consultant Surgeon,
Shalby Hospital,
Opp. Karnavati Club, S.G. Road,
Ahmedabad - 15, Gujarat. ...Opponents.
BEFORE: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
Smt. Usha P. Jani, Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. A.J. Joshi, Ld. Adv. for the complainants.
Mr. J.D. Zala, ld. Adv. for the opponents.
Page 1 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91
ORDER BY DR. J.G. MECWAN, PRESIDING MEMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. The present complainant - Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala has preferred this Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting compensation amounting to Rs. 69,94,274/- and cost of Complaint from the opponents on account of negligence of opponents.
2. The facts given rise to the present Complaint in nutshell are as under: It is the case of the complainants that complainant was having severe left knee joint pain and therefore he consulted the opponent no. 01 and thereafter he admitted on 10.01.2011 in the hospital of opponent no. 01. It is further the case of the complainant that though blood sugar and glucose in complainant urine was very high, opponent no. 02 had operated the complainant on 11.01.2011 for left knee joint replacement without controlling diabetes and thereafter he was discharged on 14.01.2011 by opponent no. 02. It is further submitted by complainant that after that he felt severe left joint knee pain and therefore complainant came again to the hospital of opponent no. 01 and thereafter on 09.02.2011 Debridement of left total knee joint of complainant was done by the opponent no. 02 and thereafter complainant was discharged on 23.02.2011. Despite all these treatments, due to severe pain the process of hospitalization and discharge of the complainant continued. It is further alleged by the complainant that without controlling his diabetes the opponent no. 02 had operated him for left knee joint and due to this negligence there was an infection spread out in his knee. It is further the case of the complainant that as his knee infection was spreading, with severe pain he admitted in AIMS Hospital at Paldi, Ahmedabad and he was operated by Dr. Manish Mistry and his left Page 2 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 leg had to be amputed and consequently on account of negligent and careless acts of the opponents, complainant suffered a permanent disability and therefore complainant has filed Consumer Complaint before this Commission.
3. Being dissatisfied by the gross medical negligence committed by the opponents the complainant has filed present Consumer Compliant before this Commission for getting compensation amounting to Rs. 69,94,274/- with 12% interest from the date of filing the Complaint along with necessary cost of Compliant.
4. In the present matter opponents have been remaining absent since long time. By pursuing the rojkam of this case it appears that the notice has been served to the opponents and on dated 10.10.2018 opponents have filed written statement and thereafter produced additional affidavit and medical literature and after that despite several phone calls, no presence has been appeared in the proceeding of this case from the opponents.
5. Today when the matter is called out, no one remained present for the opponents. Ld. Adv. Mr. A.J. Joshi has appeared on behalf of complainants and looking to the old matter of the year 2013, it has been decided by this Commission to dispose of this matter on the basis of the written statement, medical literature submitted by opponents and arguments advanced by ld. Advocate for the complainants and record of this matter.
6. The complainants have submitted following documents in the present matter:
Page 3 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91
Sr. Particulars
No.
1 Xerox copy of Pre-Op Major Profile Dated 10/01/2011 of the Complainant
2 Xerox copy of Urine Examination Report Dated 10/01/2011 of the Complainant.
3 Xerox copy of Discharge Summary Dated 14/01/2011 of the Complainant
4 Xerox copy of Discharge Card( Knee) Dated 14/01/2011 of the Complaint.
5 Xerox copy of Discharge Summary Dated 23/02/2011 of the Complaianant.
6 Xerox copy of Discharge Summary Dated 17/05/2011 of the Complainant.
7 Xerox copy of OPD Cash Memo Dated 10/01/2011 for Rs.100/- issued by the
Opponent No.1.
8 Xerox copy of In- Patient Deposit Receipt dated 14/01/2011 for Rs. 1,50,000/- issued
by the Opponent No.1.
9 Xerox copy of Retail Invoice Dated 3/02/2011 for Rs.228/ issued by the Opponent
No.1.
10 Xerox copy of OPD Cash Memo Dated 3/02/2011 for Rs.450/- issued by the
Opponent No.1.
11 Xerox copy of In-Patient Deposit Receipt Dated 17/05/2011 for Rs. 25,292/- issued
by the Opponent No.1.
12 Xerox copy of Patient A/c Summary Dated 17/05/2011 for Rs. 43,012/- issued by the
Opponent No.1
13 Xerox copy of Bill Summary Dated 17/05/2011 for Rs.68,304/-issued by the
Opponent No.1.
14 Xerox copy of photography paper film dated 11/01/2011 of the Complainant
15 Xerox copy of photography paper film dated 11/01/2011 of the Complainant
16 Xerox copy of Investigation: X Ray Left Knee AP/ Lateral (Portable) Report Dated
12/01/2011 of the Complainant
17 Xerox copy of photography paper film dated 11/05/2011 of the Complainant.
18 Xerox copy of Investigation: X Ray Left Knee AP/ Lateral (Portable) Report Dated
11/05/2011 of the Complainant.
19 Xerox copy of CT Scan of left knee joint Report Dated 16/02/2012 of the
Complainant
20 Xerox copy of Office copy of Complainant's Advocate's Notice Dated 14/05/2013
sent by R.P.A.D. to the Opponents
21 Xerox copy of R.P.A.D. Acknowledgment of the Opponent No.1.
22 Xerox copy of R.P.A.D. Acknowledgment of the Opponent No.2.
23 Xerox copy of reply Dated 13/06/2013 of the Opponent's Advocate.
24 Xerox copy of Office copy of rejoinder dated 17/07/2013 of the Complainant's
Advocate.
25 Xerox copy of R.P.A.D. Acknowledgment of the Opponents Advocate.
26 Xerox copy of Case paper dated 4/02/2012 of the Complainant.
27 Xerox copy of Case paper dated 27/12/2012 of the Complainant.
28 Xerox copy of case paper dated 30.09.2013 of AIMS Hospital Ahmedabad.
29 Xerox copy of Death Certificate of deceased of Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai
Vadaliwala.
30 Xerox copy of Pedhinama dated 20.12.2013 of deceased of Dr. Mohmed Hanif
Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala.
Page 4 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91
7. I have gone through the record of this case. The reply has been filed by the opponents on dated 10.10.2018 against the present Compliant is on record at page no. 131 to 140 wherein opponents have submitted as under:
It is submitted that the opponent hospital is engaged in providing world class tertiary care services in many medical and surgical super specialities. It is further submitted that the opponent hospital it is duly accredited by a prestigious National Level Institution called National Accreditation Board for Hospitals (NABH), a recognisation which is received by a very few Hospitals. Opponent No: 2 is a Consultant Surgeon of opponent No: 1. It is further submitted that since complainant Dr. Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala was having severe left knee joint pain, he had visited opponent No: 1 and had consulted opponent No: 2 on 10.1.2011 for the ailment suffered by him and after due consultation opponent No: 2 had advised complainant to undergo left knee replacement surgery, however, it is specifically denied that opponent No: 2 had advised immediately to undergo the said surgery. It is further submitted that as complainant was undisputedly having severe unbearable pain in the left knee, he had decided to undergo total knee replacement surgery for his left knee immediately on the next day i.e. 11.1.2011. Accordingly, complainant was admitted to opponent No: 1 Hospital on the same day on 10.1.2011 and upon admission complainant was thoroughly investigated by opponent No: 1 for Major Profile including Random Blood Sugar and Urine Sugar. It is further submitted that, at the time of first consultation with opponent No: 2, complainant has specifically stated that he does not have any previous history of Diabetes. However, prior to the surgery as per the practice of the opponent hospital, all the necessary tests are being carried out and therefore as stated hereinabove complainant was thoroughly investigated by opponent No: 1 for Major Profile including Random Blood Sugar and Urine Sugar. In the reports conducted under Major Profile, so far as the report of Blood sugar is concerned, the said level was revealed as 262 mg, however, when the Blood sugar of complainant was once again measured at 9:00 PM on 10.1.2011 at that time the Blood sugar was revealed as 190 mg. It is further submitted that, early in the morning at 6:00 AM on 11.1.2011 when the level of the Blood sugar was measured, it was revealed as 180 Mg. It is further submitted that, it is a matter of fact and record that the level of the Blood sugar at 180 mg is considered to be fit for undergoing surgery and to prevent preoperative hypo glycaemia. It is further submitted that Complainant being a professional doctor was well aware of the same and under these circumstances, as complainant was having unbearable pain due to the ailment suffered by him, complainant decided to go ahead with the total knee replacement surgery on 11.1.2011. Thus, after having voluntarily agreed to undergo the surgery, now complainant cannot take a U-turn and say that there was no urgency to perform the operation without controlling the Blood sugar, which, as a matter of fact and record, was already within the limit which was fit for surgery. It is further submitted that from the complaint itself it is evident that the complainant was a doctor by profession and therefore the complainant was also very much aware regarding the fact that blood sugar at 180 mg is considered to be fit for undergoing surgery. Had that not been the case, the complainant would not have given his consent to perform the surgery and in that case even the Page 5 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 opponent hospital would not have performed the surgery upon the complainant. It is further submitted that, thus, on the day of the surgery that is on 11.1.2011 as the Blood sugar of complainant was 180 mg at 6 AM in the morning, it was decided to go ahead with the surgery. Accordingly, the said surgery was successfully performed on 11.1.2011 and complainant was discharged on 14.1.2011. It is further submitted that it is denied that opponents have operated complainant for left knee joint replacement without controlling diabetes of complainant and due to this there was infection and thus opponents have shown negligence in service. In this regard, It is further submitted, it is reiterated that the level of Blood sugar of complainant was 180 mg on the day of surgery and the said level of blood sugar is considered fit for surgery. Thus, complainant's allegation that since the operation was done without controlling diabetes, complainant had contracted infection is absolutely false and is also contrary to record. Not only that the said allegation is absolutely vague and is without any basis whatsoever. It is further submitted that without prejudice to the case of the opponents on merits, that even if a patient is operated in a diabetic condition, it does not necessarily mean that the infection was due to the diabetic condition. It is further submitted that there are various reasons under which a patient contracts infection and it is not solely dependent upon the diabetic condition of the patient and therefore also the case of complainant is without any basis.
It is further submitted that complainant has also suppressed the material fact that complainant did not follow the instructions given to complainant by opponents. In this regard, It is further submitted that though complainant was advised to take complete rest, complainant did not follow the said instruction, which would be revealed from the fact that complainant had suffered a fracture of femur bone due to falling down, for which complainant was treated by opponents free of cost without charging anything from the complainant. It is further submitted that, the complainant even used to offer prayers (Namaz), which necessarily involves bending of knees, which is not at all advisable after knee replacement surgery, which was specifically explained to the complainant. This was informed by the complainant himself on oral questioning by the doctor. Not only that, since complainant was also a professional doctor, opponents had given him more than reasonable concession for the treatment undergone by complainant at opponent No: 1 Hospital, the details of which are not divulged at this stage since complainant is also very much aware of the same and the said fact is even reflected in the Bills issued to complainant by opponent No. 1. However, instead of appreciating the goodwill gesture on the part of opponents, in order to wrongfully extort money from opponents, complainant has made an absolutely false allegation against opponents. It is denied that on account of the negligence and careless acts of opponents, the complainant was unable to walk and to do his day to day work and thus opponents are liable for the gross negligence. It is further submitted that opponents deny that owing to the negligence of opponents, complainant has suffered damages both special and general, which is not recoverable in terms of money. It is further submitted that opponents deny that the opponents are required to pay costs and compensation as claimed in the complaint. In this regard, It is further submitted that the surgery was performed upon complainant with utmost care and caution and further to add that all joint replacement surgeries including total knee replacement (TKR) at opponent No: 1 Hospital are performed under 100 class operation theatre with body exhaust suit. It is further submitted that the infection rate after TKR surgery is about 0.2 to 1% Page 6 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 worldwide. The infection rate at the opponent No: 1 Hospital is around 0.2% which is on a lower side as compared to worldwide infection rate. There are so many factors which lead to infection i.e. patient low immunity, bectenemia in blood stream or septic focus anywhere in the body. It is further submitted that, it appears that complainant alone is responsible for the sufferings undergone by him as he did not follow the instructions given to him by opponents and had even suffered from fracture of the femur bone, for which also he was treated by opponents free of cost, only because of the fact that complainant is also a doctor by profession. It is further submitted that he even used to offer prayers (Namaz) which necessarily involves bending of knees, which is not at all advisable after knee replacement surgery, which was specifically explained to the complainant. It is further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of opponents as alleged and therefore opponents are not liable to make payment of the amount as claimed by complainant in the complaint in question. However, only with a view to extort money from the opponents, the complaint in question is filed after availing all the best treatment from opponents and after the condition of complainant has improved.
Furthermore the Complainants have filed affidavit in rejoinder against the reply of the opponents which is on record at page no. 145 to 153 and written arguments on behalf of the complainants is also on record at page no. 244 wherein complainants have mentioned as under:
It is submitted that the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala was in the month of January-2011 having severe left knee joint pain and therefore he had decided to consult Specialized Surgeon for knee joint replacement. Thereafter he was introduced to the Opponent No. 1 on 10/01/2011 and he was given to understand that the Opponent No.2 who was the Consultant Surgeon of the Opponent No.1 Hospital was an expert in knee joint replacement surgery and he had gained great Specialisation in such field and he was introduced to the Opponent No.2 by Opponent No.1 and the Opponent No.2 assured him that with his experience and specialization in the knee joint replacement surgery in a very short period of time, he would be relieved from any knee joint pain if he would undergo knee joint replacement surgery. In fact he was led to believe by the Opponent No.1 that the Opponent No.2 was the best doctor in Asia so far as knee joint replacement surgery was concerned and had also conducted several international conferences in the related field. In fact the Opponent No.1 went to the extent of saying that his case was a simple and there would be no knee joint complication in future. It is further submitted that thereafter on 10/01/2011 the Opponent No.2 took over the case and on the same day the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala was admitted in the Hospital of Opponent No.1. It is further submitted that PRE-OP MAJOR PROFILE Report dated 10/01/2011 of the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala showed that his blood sugar (Random) was 262 and Urine Examination Report dated 10/01/2011 showed present was ++++ and Blood was Present ++. It is further submitted that though blood sugar and glucose of Page 7 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala in his urine was very high despite this immediately on 11/01/2011 the Opponent No.2 had operated him for left knee joint replacement without controlling diabetes. It is further submitted that for the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala left side of knee joint replacement surgery there was no emergency. Despite this without controlling diabetes the Opponent No.2 had operated him on 11/01/2011. It is further submitted that as deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala had severe pain in his left knee on 4/02/2012 he went to the Hospital of the Opponent No.1 and on that day the X-Ray was taken by the Hospital of the Opponent No.1 which showed that 2 cortex not yet healed. Thereafter on 27/12/2012 he went to the Hospital of the Opponent No.1 and on that day dressing of his leg knee was done. It is further submitted that as the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala left knee infection was spreading and he was having severe pain on 13/09/2013 he went to AIMS Hospital Opp. Jethabhai Park, Narayannagar Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad 380007 and on the same day i.e on 13/09/2013 he was admitted in the said Hospital and on 19/09/2013 he was operated by Dr.Manish Mistry and his left leg was amputed and on 30/09/2013 he was discharged from the said Hospital. It is further submitted that for the purpose of operation at the Hospital of the Opponent No.1 the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala had incurred expenses of Rs. 2,43,596/ and further he had incurred expenses of Rs. 678/- for medicines. It is further submitted that for amputation of deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala, left leg for surgery, medical test reports and medicines at AIMS Hospital at Ahmedabad he had incurred expenses of about Rs.7,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the surgery performed by the Opponent No.2 was a very simple one which by itself could not give rise to any complication in a healthy person. It is further submitted that the reason for the negligence of the Opponent No.2 was that he had without controlling the blood sugar and urine had immediately performed the surgery. This very fact shows that the surgical procedure adopted by the Opponent No.2 while the deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala was in the sole care and custody of the Opponent No.2 speaks of the negligence of the Opponent No.2 in his treatment. It is further submitted that the principle of res ipsa loquitur is attracted in the instant case, since deceased Dr.Mohmed Hanif Ibrahimbhai Vadaliwala had went in for a relatively minor surgery as a healthy person with no other ailments and suffered complications immediately after such surgery while in the sole care and custody of the Opponents which were not the normal effects of such surgery or the purpose for which it was undertaken and which had resulted in unable to move and practice as a doctor and this would not have arisen in the normal course in the absence of negligence.
8. In the instant case it is the main contention of the complainants that though the reports shows his Blood Sugar - High and even Presence of Glucose was found in the reports dated 10.01.2011, opponent had operated him for his left knee joint replacement and resultantly due to this gross negligence he developed an infection in his knee and consequently Page 8 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 his left leg had to be amputed. It is alleged by the complainants that due to this gross medical negligence, complainants had to suffer a permanent disability and had to endure a lot.
9. We have gone through the record of this case. We have also carefully gone through the report of PRE-OP MAJOR PROFILE given by Department of Pathology & Microbiology dated 10.01.2011 which is on record at page no. 15 wherein it has been clearly shown the BLOOD SUGAR(R) level at 262mg/dL which was supposed to be in between 80 to 140 mg/dL. We have also gone through the Urine Examination report which is on record at page no. 20 wherein the GLUCOSE was detected as Present(++++). It is an averment of complainant that despite the Blood Sugar and Glucose of Patient was recorded too high, opponent no. 02 has performed the surgery on patient just after the next day on 11.01.2011 which clearly shows the gross medical negligence of the opponents. It is an averment of the opponents that on date 10.11.2011 at 9:00 PM Blood Sugar of deceased was measured and at that time it was 190mg and thereafter on date 11.01.2011 at 6:00 AM once again Blood Sugar was measured which was 180mg and it was considered to be fit for undergoing surgery and it also considered to go ahead with total knee replacement surgery. In support of this submission opponents have produced Xerox copy of laboratory report which is on record wherein on date 10.01.2011 and on date 11.01.2011 the Blood Sugar (R) of the patient was recorded as 190mg/dL and 180mg/dL respectively.
10. Furthermore, opponents have also produced Medical literature in support of their submission which is also on record wherein it is specifically shown that 120-180mg is recommendable Blood Sugar for undergoing surgery. On Page 9 of 12 R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 the other hand it is an averment of the complainant that opponents have shown negligence and not performed their duty with reasonable skill but in connection with this allegation complainant has not submitted any medical expert opinion to prove his case.
11. Regarding the medical negligence of Doctor in the case of Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in 2009 AIR SCW, 1807 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 and 46 has observed as under:
41. A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
46. There may be a few cases where an exceptionally brilliant doctor performs an operation or prescribes a treatment which has never been tried before to save the life of a patient when no known method of treatment is available. If the patient dies or suffers some serious harm, should the doctor be held liable? In our opinion he should not. Science advances by experimentation, but experiments sometime end in failure e.g. the operation on the Iranian twin sisters who were joined at the head since birth, or the first heart transplant by Dr. Barnard in South Africa. However, in such cases it is advisable for the doctor to explain the situation to the patient and take his written consent.
12.Regarding medical negligence of Doctor Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1385/2001 in the case of Kusum Sharma and Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors. has observed following principles:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.Page 10 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91 IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.
13.This State Commission in C.C. no. 11 of 2009 in the case of Jagrut Nagrik Trust Mehsana & Anr. Vs. Dr. Ilesh C. Mehta & Anr. has observed as under:
"In absence of any opinion of the Expert Doctor, or on the basis of authentic medical literature, negligence of the treating doctors cannot be proved."Page 11 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91
14.In view of the above as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this State Commission in the instant case also when opponent Doctor is skilled and duly qualified in his respective field and he has tried their best and performed his professional duty then the allegation made by the complainant is not sustainable. Furthermore, in the instant case the complainant is miserable failed to prove the medical negligence of opponent doctor and also not produced any Expert opinion.
15.In view of the above conspectus when the complainant is failed to prove the negligence on the part of the opponent and therefore in the opinion of this Commission the present Compliant is deserve to be dismissed and hence the following final order is passed.
ORDER
1. The present Compliant is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 17th November, 2021.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan]
[Usha P. Jani] Presiding Member.
Member
Page 12 of 12
R.I. DESAI CC/2013/91