National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Sandep Singh Sandhu vs Amarjit Kaur & Anr. on 3 May, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 08/05/2018 in Appeal No. 784/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. DR. SANDEP SINGH SANDHU C/O. SANDHU HOSPITAL NEAR BUS STAND, OPP. WATER WORKS SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AMARJIT KAUR & ANR. W/O. GURDEV SINGH, R/O. KACHA THANDEWALA ROAD, GALI NO. 9, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CIVIL LINES KOTKAPURA ROAD, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB DISTRICT-SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : DR. DISHA SINGH, ADVOCATE (VC) FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT-1 : MR. ARVINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE (VC)
FOR THE RESPONDENT-2 : NEMO
Dated : 03 May 2024 ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 784 of 2017, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.
2. The factual background in brief, is that the Complainant sought medical attention for her knee pain and, attracted by the reputation of the Petitioner Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu, she visited his hospital for a consultation. On his recommendation, she underwent surgery on her left knee on 02.03.2016, for which she paid Rs. 1,50,000/-. Despite regular post-operative check-ups, the pain in her knee persisted and worsened over time. The Complainant informed the Petitioner of her ongoing discomfort on multiple occasions. However, the Petitioner dismissed her concerns, assuring her that the pain would eventually diminish. Frustrated by the lack of improvement, the Complainant sought second opinions from other hospitals. These consultations revealed that her initial knee surgery had been improperly conducted, resulting in puss formation and necessitating corrective surgery. Upon learning of this, the Complainant promptly informed the Petitioner about the other doctors' recommendations. Despite being made aware of the situation, the Petitioner failed to take appropriate action. Aggrieved by the Petitioner's medical negligence, the Complainant filed her complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib, seeking compensation and other ancillary reliefs.
3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 10.10.2017 allowed the Complaint No. 82/2016 and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, along with Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs; with further directions as to payment of interest by both the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner filed Appeal against the Order in the State Commission which dismissed it and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -
"14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
15. First of all, it is necessary that the surgery was carried out by a competent Surgeon, who was specialized in the field i.e. Total Knee Replacement. It is the case of opposite party No. 1 that the surgery was carried out by Dr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu. A perusal of the affidavit of Dr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu, Ex.OP1/3, reveals that he is retired Doctor from Government service and the address given in the affidavit is also of Bathinda. It is not the case of opposite party No.1 that Dr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu, was residing at Sri Muktsar Sahib or he continued to be present at that place. Neither any evidence nor Certificates of the qualifications of Dr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu have been produced on record to substantiate that he is a qualified Surgeon in the Orthopaedic field nor any data with regard to the surgeries alleged to have been conducted by him has been produced on record. From this it is clear that opposite party No.1 has failed to prove on record that the Doctor, who performed the Surgery (TKR) upon the complainant was party No. 1. competent in the said field. So far as opposite himself is running Sandhu Hospital is concerned he has also not produced on record Certificates of his qualifications. However, he fund has stated in his affidavit that he is M.S. in General Surgery competent to look after puss etc.
16. It needs to be noticed here that post surgery care is most important part. In this case there are no medical notes on the record of the case to prove that after the surgery proper care was carried out or Dr. Gurdev Singh Sidhu ever visited the patient. The Doctor is required to take a reasonable care of the patient after the surgery. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had to redo the said surgery from Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar within a short span of 15 months. Firstly opposite party No. 1 has failed to bring on record that the surgery was carried out by a competent Doctor and thereafter he has also failed to prove that proper post operation care was taken of the patient/complainant In these circumstances I am of the view that the complainant suffered due to the medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and she had to redo the surgery (TKR) from Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar.
17. So far as the plea of opposite party No.1 that no expert opinion has been produced on record is concerned, in case "Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.", 2009(4) RCR (Criminal)-1(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the criminal negligence and civil negligence, opinion of expert witness and in Para no.48, observed as follows:
48. In Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Others, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal)-124: 2009(3) RCR (Civil)-174 [2009(7)SCALE-407], this Court held as under.-
"32. We are also cognizant of the fact that in a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the attending doctors and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care or diligence."
Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of opposite party No. 1 and the same is hereby rejected.
18. Another aspect is that once the complainant has prima facie shown that she had undergone surgery in the Hospital of Opposite Party No.1 and the complications had arisen thereafter, then the onus shifted upon opposite party No. 1 to prove that there was no lack of care or diligence in performing the surgery or in providing post operation care. The complainant had to redo the surgery and that too after removal of the implants done in the Hospital of opposite party No.1 as is clear from the Final Diagnosis and Operating Notes & Findings given in the Patient Discharge Summary dated 21.6.2017 issued by Amandeep, Hospital Amritsar, Ex.C-14, as under:-
"FINAL DIAGNOSIS:-
O/C/O TKR LT WITH LOOSENING T2DM/HTN OPERATING NOTES & FINDIGNS:-
SURGERY NAME REVISION TKR OPERATION DATE: 15/06/2017 OPERATIVE NOTES: IMPLANT REMOVAL DONE TKR LEFT KNEE DONE WITH STEM EXTENDOR LCCK ZIMMER)."
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above notes of Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, that there was something wrong in the surgery conducted in the Hospital of opposite party No.1 Once the complainant has discharged the burden then it is for opposite party No. 1 to prove that he was not negligent in performing the surgery and he must explain the reasons for the loosening of the implants and subsequent complications as pointed out in the Discharge Summary of Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, Ex.C-14. In the present case opposite party No.1 has not proved on record any evidence to prove the same.
19. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum, There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed; however, without any order as to costs.
20. The appellant/opposite party No. 1 had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard."
4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that the primary complaint made by the Complainant was the alleged puss formation in the operated area necessitating a second surgery. Contrary to this claim, the notes from the second surgery do not indicate any presence of pus. The State Commission erroneously concluded that there was pus formation in the Complainant's knee without any supporting evidence or documentation on record; That had there been an infection requiring pus removal, re-implantation of the knee would not have been feasible. Typically, a period of 2/3 months is needed for infection to subside, during which a spacer is used to address the infection. The operation notes from Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, confirm no infection or pus formation. The operation notes, prepared at the time of the surgery at the Petitioner's Hospital, indicate that a successful Total Knee Replacement (TKR) (Cemented) was performed using the latest techniques. Following the surgery, the Complainant visited the Hospital for a follow-up without raising any concerns; That the Ikonkar Society, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which operates a dispensary at Gurudwara Shaheedan, referred the Complainant to the Petitioner and strongly recommended the surgery on a charitable basis. Consequently, only Rs. 80,000/- was charged for the surgery and associated hospital expenses. Although the Complainant visited Sandhu Hospital on 16.06.2016, she did not return for any subsequent visits; That the Complainant remained pain-free for eleven months post-surgery, only experiencing pain four months prior to the second surgery. A certificate from Amandeep Hospital dated 04.12.2017 diagnoses the Complainant with 'aseptic implant loosening'. This certificate clarifies that implant loosening is a recognized complication that can occur even with the best surgical practices, and no fault can be attributed to the surgery; That the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1", has held that a doctor cannot be held liable for negligence as long as they adhere to the prevailing medical practices. Similarly, in "S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur and Anr. CA No. 3971/2011", the Court emphasized that unsuccessful treatment or surgical complications do not automatically imply medical negligence.
5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that due to persistent pain during the complaint's pendency in the District Forum, she was admitted to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, on 12.06.2017. Her left knee underwent re-surgery to remove the previously implanted device from the Petitioner's Hospital. This information is corroborated by the Final Diagnosis, Operating Notes & Findings in the Patient Discharge Summary dated 21.06.2017 from Amandeep Hospital. She was discharged on 21.06.2017 and has since been in good health without any complaints related to the second surgery; That after the second surgery, the facts were included in the amended complaint, which was approved by the District Forum in its Order dated 10.10.2017; That the severe pain experienced by the Complainant following the initial surgery performed by the Petitioner supports the application of the 'Res ipsa loquitur' principle against the Petitioner; That in Para 17 of the impugned Order, the State Commission addressed the burden of proving "medical negligence," citing the Supreme Court's stance in "Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences" (supra). The State Commission's findings establish "medical negligence" on the part of the Petitioner, justifying the dismissal of the Appeal.
6. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.
7. The Petitioner is aggrieved that in returning the finding that there was medical negligence on its part, none of the Ld. Fora below have considered the said law that a medical specialise cannot guarantee that result of any surgery would invariably be beneficial for the patient concerned. On the other hand, he is only expected to perform his job with reasonable skill and competence. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which are referred to in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Admittedly, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to support the case of the Complainant that following the surgery/Total Knee Arthroplasty performed upon her by the Petitioner, there was "Puss Formation" which necessitated another corrective surgery. No Doctor consulted by the Complainant, including the Doctors at "Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar" where she had undergone the second surgery had recorded in their notes about any history or incidence of puss formation. To that extent, this specific averment of the Complainant is not found to be correct. Also, there is no material on record in the form of any note by any Medical Specialist to the effect that there had been some kind of negligence or even any kind of impropriety in performance of the first Total Knee Arthroplasty. But both the Ld. Fora below took a view that since the Complainant kept on suffering from pain following such surgery, and that she faced no such problem after her second surgery, so it was a case of res-ipsa loquitor to the effect that the surgery had been done in the Petitioner's Hospital negligently or otherwise improperly. This Commission however, is not in agreement with such view. This is so because, it is settled law that merely because the result of any medical procedure was not to the satisfaction of the patient, so Medical Negligence on the part of the concerned Surgeon/Medical Specialist cannot be automatically inferred. This has been a consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its pronouncements.
9. In "Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1", the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed inter alia -
"The purpose of holding a professional liable for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make the life safer and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in future. Human body and medical science both are too complex to be easily understood. To hold in favour of existence of negligence, associated with the action or inaction of a medical professional, requires an in-depth understanding of the working of a professional as also the nature of the job and of errors committed by chance, which do not necessarily involve the element of culpability.
The subject of negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for treatment with a difference. Several relevant considerations in this regard are found mentioned by Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith in their work "Errors, Medicine and the Law" (Cambridge University Press, 2001). There is a marked tendency to look for a human actor to blame for an untoward event a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be found to answer for it. To draw a distinction between the blameworthy and the blameless, the notion of mens rea has to be elaborately understood. An empirical study would reveal that the background to a mishap is frequently far more complex than may generally be assumed. It can be demonstrated that actual blame for the outcome has to be attributed with great caution. For a medical accident or failure, the responsibility may lie with the medical practitioner and equally it may not. The inadequacies of the system, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature of human psychology itself and sheer chance may have combined to produce a result in which the doctor's contribution is either relatively or completely blameless. Human body and its working is nothing less than a highly complex machine. Coupled with the complexities of medical science, the scope for misimpressions, misgivings and misplaced allegations against the operator i.e. the doctor, cannot be ruled out. One may have notions of best or ideal practice which are different from the reality of how medical practice is carried on or how in real life the doctor functions. The factors of pressing need and limited resources cannot be ruled out from consideration. Dealing with a case of medical negligence needs a deeper understanding of the practical side of medicine.
At least three weighty considerations can be pointed out which any forum trying the issue of medical negligence in any jurisdiction must keep in mind. These are: (i) that legal and disciplinary procedures should be properly founded on firm, moral and scientific grounds; (ii) that patients will be better served if the real causes of harm are properly identified and appropriately acted upon; and (iii) that many incidents involve a contribution from more than one person, and the tendency is to blame the last identifiable element in the chain of causation the person holding the 'smoking gun'.
10. Similarly, in "S.K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Dhanwanti Kaur and Anr.", the Hon'ble Supreme Court had similarly observed -
"21. So far as this Court is concerned, a Three Judge Bench in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1] examined this issue. Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, (as he then was) speaking for the Bench extensively referred to the law laid down in Bolam's case (supra) and in Eckersley's case (supra) and placing reliance on these two decisions observed in his distinctive style of writing that the classical statement of law in Bolam's case (supra) has been widely accepted as decisive of the standard of care required by both of professional men generally and medical practitioner in particular and it is invariably cited with approval before the Courts in India and applied as a touchstone to test the pleas of medical negligence.
22. It was held that a Physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100 % for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the entire person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.
(Emphasis added)
23. It was further observed that the fact that a defendant charged with negligence acted in accord with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge. It was held that the standard of care, when assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident and not at the date of trial. It was held that the standard to be applied for judging whether the person charged has been negligent or not would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. His Lordship quoted with approval the subtle observations of Lord Denning made in Hucks vs. Cole (1968) 118 New LJ 469, namely, "a medical practitioner was not be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be held liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field."
11. In "M.A. Bivji Vs. Sunita & Ors. (2023 INSC 938)", the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed -
"To hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations. Therefore, to safeguard these medical practitioners and to ensure that they are able to freely discharge their medical duty, a higher proof of burden must be fulfilled by the complainant. The complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and the subsequent injury being attributable to the aforesaid breach as well, in order to hold a doctor liable for medical negligence. On the other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice."
(Emphasis added)
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter went on to further observe inter alia -
"As reasoned earlier, the burden of establishing negligence is on the complainant. In this case, however, Mrs. Sunita had failed to prove medical negligence by the doctors. There is no evidence to establish that the 'NI' procedure is a bad medical practice or based on unsound medical advice. None of the hospitals where Mrs. Sunita was treated prior to Suretech Hospital opined that the 'NI' procedure was not medically acceptable. Additionally, none of the doctors who treated her subsequently opined that the 'NI' treatment was not a medically acceptable practice or that the said procedure had been performed negligently. On the other hand, the medical team at Suretech Hospital was able to successfully prove that due medical consideration was given before choosing the aforesaid 'NI' procedure. Therefore, no negligence was committed in opting for and/or conducting the aforesaid procedure."
13. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been contended that neither of the Ld. Fora below went into the question whether there was any actual material to indicate either lack of skill or lack of competence in applying such skill in case of the Complainant. It has also been emphasised that in the very first para of the original complaint (Annexure - P2), the Complainant/ Respondent had sought compensation on account of medical negligence in conducting the operation on her left knee, "resultantly, puss was found in the knees of the Complainant", whereas there is absolutely no material on record to show that any puss was actually found by any of the Doctors who subsequently treated her, as originally alleged. It has also been contended that in case of "total knee Arthroplasty", there are always instances although rare which show that the patients are required to revisit Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. In this regard, further reliances have been placed on Chapter 6 of "Cambell's Operative Orthopaedics Volume 1, 11th Edition" by the Petitioner in which it has been noted as follows -
"REVISION TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY The rate of revision of primary TKA remains relatively low. According to a meta-analysis involving 9879 patients by Callahan et al., a 3.8% revision rate was seen at 4 years after primary tricompartmental, TKA. In a population based study by Coyte et al., a similar revision rate estimated between 4.3% and 8% was seen at 7 years postoperatively in 18,530 patients. Data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey and the U.S. census from 1990 to 2002 showed a relatively constant 8.2% revision rate for TKA.
Aseptic Failure of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Aseptic failure of TKA can be caused by several factors, including component loosening, polyethylene wear with osteolysis, ligamentous laxity, periprostheti fracture, arthrofibrosis, and patellofemoral complications. To date, tibial component loosening has been more common than femoral component loosening. It has been associated with malalignment of the limb, ligamentous laxity, duration of implantation, patients with high activity demands, polyethylene wear, and excessive component constraint."
14. Alongwith Revision Petition also, the Petitioner had filed extracts from Medical Literature on "Why Are Total Knee Arthroplasties Failing Today?" which is Annexure - P-6 on record, and in which it was similarly noted -
"Abstract Author Information The incidence of failure after knee replacement is low, yet it has been reported that more than 22,000 knee replacements are revised yearly. The purpose of the current study was to determine current mechanism of failure of total knee arthroplasties. A retrospective review was done on all patients who had revision total knee arthroplasty during a 3-year period (September 1997- October 2000) at one institution. The preoperative evaluation in conjunction with radiographs, laboratory data, and intraoperative findings were used to determine causes of failure. Two hundred twelve surgeries were done on 203 patients (nine patients had bilateral surgeries). The reasons for failure listed in order of prevalence among the patients in this study include polyethylene wear, aseptic loosening, instability, infection, arthrofibrosis, malalignment or malposition, deficient extensor mechanism, avascular necrosis in the patella, periprosthetic fracture, and isolated patellar resurfacing. The cases reviewed included patients who had revision surgery within 9 days to 28 years (average3.7 years) after the previous surgery. More than half of the revisions in this group of patients were done less than 2 years after the index operation. Fifty percent of early revision total knee arthroplasties in this series were related to instability, malalignment or malposition, and failure of fixation." (Emphasis added)
15. It is therefore clear that in the present case, both the Ld. Fora below had adopted an approach noted and deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jacob Mathew" (supra) that, "...There is a marked tendency to look for a human actor to blame for any untoward event a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be found to answer for it......."
16. Both the Ld. fora below would also appear to have lost sight of the settled law that there is no guarantee of the part of a Doctor/Medical Specialist that the things would go 100% right for the patient following the procedure, and simply because the result is not to the satisfaction of the patient, it cannot ipso facto be concluded that there was medical negligence, unless it can be shown that either the person concerned did not possess the requisite knowledge/skill to perform a given procedure, or that the procedure itself was not in accordance with the established medical norms. Consequently when it is clear from the medical literature/empirical data cited on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that 'Aseptic Failure' of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty is ascribable to various factors, not connected with any medical negligence, and is known to occur in some cases, it cannot be said that the blame for such occurrence in the present case can automatically be passed on to the Petitioner.
17. In dismissing the Appeal, the Ld. State Commission went even beyond the reasoning of the Ld. District Forum by further implying in Para 13 of its impugned Order that Dr. Gurdev Singh, who had performed the surgery was not competent to do so. The Ld. State Commission appears to have ignored the qualifications of the said Surgeon disclosed in the very first paragraph of his Affidavit, according to which he is M.B.B.S., M.S. (Ortho), M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery), apart from being the Ex. CMO, Bathinda, The Ld. State Commission also appears to have ignored the statements in Para 4 of the said Affidavit about the vast experience and eminence of the said Surgeon, in as much as he had graduated in Orthopaedics way back in the year 1977 and had been treating the patients for more 39 years in various capacities including government jobs for more than 28 years as S.M.O. at Bhatinda, and that the entire Malwa belt in the state of Punjab is aware about his skills as an Orthopaedic Surgeon, whereas the Opposite Party No. 1- Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu has also done his Post Graduation in Surgery in 2009 after which he has been doing surgeries successfully.
18. Consequently, there remains little doubt that there was no lack of qualifications on the part of conducting Orthopaedic Surgeon-Dr. Gurdev Singh. Further, the fact that the Complainant had to undergo a second surgery, would not ipso facto indicate any medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, since as already seen from the medical literature referred to in Para 14 earlier, there is incidence of failure in many cases for various reasons not connected with any negligence on the part of the Surgeon, and such failures have been known to occur within a period of 9 days from the date of first surgery, although the overall average period is 3.7 years. Furthermore, since the Complainant's allegation that on account of the alleged defect in surgical procedure, puss had been found in her knees, has also not been found to be correct from the available medical evidence on record. Consequently, this Commission is of the opinion that both the Ld. Fora below misdirected themselves by holding the Opposite Parties guilty of medical negligence for the simple reason that the Complainant had been required to undergo the second surgery after the procedure of Total Knee Replacement had been attempted by the Opposite Parties.
19. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed after setting aside the orders of both the Ld. Fora below. The Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 accordingly stands dismissed.
20. Parties to bear their own costs.
21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
......................................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER