State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Ajay Jain & Ors. vs Kamal Kumar on 15 January, 2026
FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 23.10.2013
Date of hearing: 19.11.2025
Date of Decision: 15.01.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 1140/2013
IN THE MATTER OF
1. DR. AJAY JAIN
JAIN CHARITABLE HOSPITAL
STREET NO. 5, RAGHUBARPURA NO.2,
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 110031.
2. JAIN CHARITABLE HOSPITAL
(A UNIT OF SH. JAIN SEWA NIDHI (REGD.)
THROUGH SH. P. K. BHARGAVA,
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
STREET NO. 5, RAGHUBARPURA NO.2.
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 110031
3. DR. NUPUR PAGORE,
JAIN CHARITABLE HOSPITAL
STREET NO. 5, RAGHUBARPURA NO.2
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 110031
(Through: Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate)
.......Appellants
VERSUS
KAMAL KUMAR
S/O. SH GULSHAN KUMAR
H/O NO. 55/56 GALI NO. 4,
EAST AZAD NAGAR,
DELHI 110051
(Through: Mr. K.G. Kocher, Advocate)
...Respondent
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 17
FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. K. G. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant appeared
through VC.
Mr. Dishant Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
appeared through VC
Ms. Charu Jha, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 (Enrl.
No. D/1690/2023, Mobile: 7982494615, Email:
[email protected]
PER :HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"This complaint has been filed with the allegation that Smt. Santosh aged 24 years was pregnant and used to often complaint about headache. She was taken to Govind Ballabh Panth Hospital in the month of May, 2010 She was diagnosed with Plenum Sphen Mengiona and she has to be operated for the same for curing the disease. It was also advised that the pregnancy is to be terminated before undertaking the operation to avoid any complication. On the advice of the doctors of GB Pant Hospital she was admitted to OP Hospital on 07.06.10 for termination of pregnancy and a sum of Rs.1444/-was deposited towards the registration charges. As per complainant, Dr. Nupur Pagore and Dr. Ajay Jain conducted the operation on 08.06.10 for termination of the pregnancy. It is alleged that before undertaking the operation preliminary test like urine test, blood test and BP check were not conducted which are essential before conducting any operation. The wife of the complainant was discharged after the operation with burst abdomen and continued bleeding and was referred to government hospital. She was immediately taken to LNJP ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 Hospital in a very bad condition. She was taken to the emergency ward and she was diagnosed as "Post D&C Uterine Perforation & Ileal Perforatiuon & Burst Abdomen" which clearly shows that OP2 and OP3 conducted the operation carelessly and negligently. The OP2 and OP3 were not competent and not qualified to conduct such a simple operation and hospital was not adequately well equipped with the facility to handle such a situation. It was also diagnosed that a nerve was wrongly cut from both sides by OP2 & OP3 resulted into the bleeding and it was beyond the competence to control the situation by OP2 & OP3. OPI to OP3 refused to provide the record of treatment so as to facilitate the treatment at LNJP Hospital. Despite the legal notice the same was not provided. The wife of the complainant, shattered and is not able to work despite one month hospitalization at LNJP Hospital. In these circumstances the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs, Rs.80,000/-towards medical expenses as well as Rs. 16500/- as cost of litigation.
In the written statement filed by the OP1 to OP3 wherein they have specifically pleaded that there is not a single element of deficiency in providing the services as the complainant failed to explain as to how the OPs were negligent. The complaint is based on non- specific, unscientific and laymen conjectures and complaint is not supported with any medical opinion and it has been filed on false allegation. The OP1 and OP3 are insured with United India Insurance Company and OP2 is also insured with United India Insurance Company. As such the United India Insurance Company is a necessary party. The treating doctor had done their best and used highest degree of skill, care, knowledge, infrastructure, efforts and precautions to avoid any complications. The inherent complication which are basic ingredients either of disease pathology or treatment ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 procedure were well known and they are always informed before starting the treatment and performing the surgery. The patient was properly investigated as per the prescribed norms of the general practice. The patient was G3 P1 + 1 with 12 weeks missed abortion. She was having history of meningioma and the doctors at the GTB Hospital had advised for termination of the pregnancy. She was suffering from brain tumor as per the report of the MRI brain which was conducted in the month of June 2010 as was reported by the complainant to the OP hospital and after getting written consent D&E with IV sedation (local anaesthesia) and found that the uterus was extremely fragile. It was a case of Pyometra with products of conception during the procedure. The conception were evacuated and puss was drained completely in the end of the procedure healing of give way? interior wall perforation of uterus was there. USG whole abdomen (screening only) shows mild collection in pelvis. Under these circumstances, it was decided to review the USG and she was examined by the senior doctors on 08.06.10 and it is only after discussion with the husband of the patient that she was referred to higher medical centre as she might require ICU facilities for further management and it is on the request of the husband that she was referred to the LNJP Hospital and Dr. A. Gupta and RMO on duty accompanied the patient in ambulance and got her admitted in LNJP Hospital for further management and treatment. All the other allegations have been denied.."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 27.08.2013, whereby it held as under:
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence filed by both the parties on record.
ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026
Emphasis has been laid by the Ld. Counsel for the OP that the expert medical opinion submitted by GTB Hospital leaves no room for doubt that this case is nothing, but a tool to harass the OPs and to get the compensation. We have gone through the expert medical opinion submitted by GTB Hopsital wherein the experts are of the opinion that such type of allegations are associated in case of abortion. May it be the issue raised in the present case by the complainant is all together different.
This fact is not at all in dispute that Smt. Santosh was advised by the doctors for termination of pregnancy as it was necessary for curing the disease from which she was suffering from. The documents which have been filed establishes this fact that it is on 08.06.10 that Smt. Santosh was admitted at OPs hospital for curing pain in the abdomen and distention. The Annexure-II is the document of LNJP Hospital which also shows that she was admitted there on 08.06.10. She was diagnosed post D&C Uterine Perforation & Ileal Perforation & Burst Abdomen. Exploratory Laparotomy and uterine repair was done. The simple question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the patient Smt. Santosh as per the written statement averment was known case of brain tumor and pregnancy which was causing her complication. In such circumstances, whether the doctors at the OP hospital were not at all competent to accept and admit such patient for carrying out a surgery having such a high degree of risk.
The only contention which has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is may it be that it was a known complication for surgery that there may be perforation, ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 bleeding from the abdomen etc. Whether it was incumbent upon OPI to OP3 to have admitted such a patient when they do not have the facility to manage such emergencies which may arise due to complication known in such type of operation. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant simply pointed out self-admission in FORUM 15 of the writte PR PRO statement of the OP wherein it has been specifically mentioned that it was discussed with the husband of the patient that she may require higher medical centre as she might require ICU facilities for further management. ICU is such a facility in a hospital which provide in case of emergency life support system and if the hospital is not having the facility in their ICU then they should not have admitted such a patient for performing surgery when they were well aware that the patient is a high risk patient having brain tumor, a fragile uterus and puss in the uterus.
The Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon National Commission Disputre Redressal judgment in the matter of Dr. Madhavi Amma Memorial Trust v/s Padmanabhan & others where the Hon'ble National Commission has hold that if surgery was conducted without arrangement of the necessary infrastructure, it will amounts to gross negligence. OP! to OP3 miserably failed to prove on record that they were well equipped to deal with such emergencies. OPs on admission clearly proves that their ICU, if they were having any was not well equipped to deal with such emergencies as has arisen in the case of the complainant. They have not produced on record the details of the equipment they were having in their hospital which may prove that the referral to the higher medical centre ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 was essentially required and this case could be handled at their ICU which was well equipped.
This has also been pointed out by the complainant Counsel that the pleadings of in the written statement are not in conformity with the medical record. The patient was admitted on 08.06.10 and operated on 08.06.10. In para 14 at page 5 of the written statement it has been mentioned that she was hospitalized on 07.06.10 and the procedure was also done at 07.06.10 and it is on 08.06.10 that the USG was reviewed and she was examined by the senior specialist. On the contrary the discharge summary of the OPs hospital shows that everything was done on 08.06.10 and on 08.06.10 itself she was admitted at LNJP Hospital. In view of the above facts, the inference can be drawn that OPs hospital is trying to conceal facts from this Forum and pleading facts which are not supported by the record of the hospital. In view of the above, we hold that the procedure undertaken by OP1 to OP3 at Jain Charitable Hospital should not have been performed when they are not well equipped to deal with the emergencies which may arises in such type c cases it is a clear case of negligence. This has been observed these day that medical profession which is considered to be one of the noblest field service to the humanity is affected by the greed. Hospitals and doctors don't hesitate in putting the life of patient at risk.
We are pained that young woman has been put to such a traumatic state which has affected the chances of her motherhood. She has to live with this trauma for her remaining life. No amount of compensation can bring her back the ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 opportunity she has lost due to sheer negligence on the part of the OPI to OP3. We allow this complaint. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration we awarding a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- which will also include the cost of treatment which she has undertaken after the operation and for her pain and suffering etc. If this amount is not paid within 45 days of the service of this order then 9% interest shall be payable over this amount till it is finally paid.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per rules."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Respondent has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned order is without proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence available on record and hence is liable to be set aside. The Appellant has submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the Laparotomy procedure was not conducted at the Appellant hospital and was in fact carried out at LNJP Hospital. Furthermore, it is submitted that the patient-Respondent is trying to associate the condition of burst abdomen with the primary surgery conducted at the Appellant hospital whereas in fact the patient suffered burst abdomen after the Laparotomy procedure conducted at LNJP hospital. Secondly, it is submitted that the Appellant hospital is equipped with all the facilities to conduct the D&R procedure. Thirdly, it is submitted that the patient was diagnosed with perforated uterus with pus and the patient was referred to higher centre with ICU facility i.e. LNJP hospital for further management. Lastly, it is submitted that no negligence can be carved out on the part of the Appellants as the patient was extended reasonable care as per the standard operating procedure. Pressing the aforesaid ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 submissions, the Appellants have prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed the reply denying all the allegations of the Appellant and has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the order. The Respondent has further submitted that there is clear negligence and deficiency of service by the Appellant Medical Centre in so much so that the Appellant failed to ensure the availability of ICU facility and if the same was not available with the Appellant medical centre, the Appellants ought not to have operated upon the patient. It is further submitted that the Appellants failed to conduct mandatory tests before the D&C procedure to ascertain the condition of the patient and such conduct amounts to gross negligence. Pressing on the aforesaid submission, the counsel for the Respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the present Appeal.
5. The parties have filed their brief written arguments and the same have been given due consideration.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels for the parties at length.
7. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Appellant is liable for medical negligence.
8. The facts of the case reflect that the Respondent-patient was taken to Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital in the month of May, 2010 and was diagnosed with Plenum Sphenoidale Meningioma alongwith advise for termination of pregnancy. On the advice of the doctors of GB Pant Hospital patient was admitted to Appellant-Hospital on 07.06.10 for termination of pregnancy wherein the conception were evacuated and puss was drained. USG whole abdomen (screening only) showed mild collection in pelvis. Thereafter, the patient was referred to LNJP Hospital ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 where the patient was diagnosed post D&C Uterine Perforation & Ileal Perforation & Burst Abdomen. Exploratory Laparotomy and uterine repair was done.
9. Here, it is pertinent to note that the controversy in the present case relates to the condition of post D&C Uterine Perforation & Ileal Perforation & Burst Abdomen, which is a medical emergency involving grave consequences if left untreated. The said condition is often caused by surgical procedures and requires urgent medical intervention.
10. A bare perusal of the Appeal makes reflects that the contention of the Appellant boils down to the contention that the District Commission has erred in not considering the expert medical opinion which clearly states that burst abdomen is a known complication of laparotomy and that Exploratory Laparotomy was performed at LNJP Hospital and not at the Appellant No. 2 Hospital. Thus, the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent is trying to associate the result of the laparotomy conducted at LNJP Hospital with the primary surgery conducted at the Appellant No. 2 Hospital. On the other hand, the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant failed to provide the ICU facility and the Appellant ought not to operate upon the patient, if the patient was to be ultimately referred to a higher centre i.e. LNJP Hospital for further management.
11. From the extensive reading of medical literature on the subject, it has come to our knowledge that Dilation and Curettage procedure is minor surgery wherein the endometrial tissue or products of terminated pregnancy are removed from the uterus after dilating the cervix using surgical apparatus. However, to ascertain whether the medical practitioner failed to provide reasonable standard of care or the failure to take precautions, expert evidence plays a crucial role. Here, we deem it pertinent to take note of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in REVISION PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2022 titled as ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 Chief Medical Officer Nehru Satabdi vs Puja Sahu decided on 16 August, 2024 wherein no expert medical evidence was presented to support the claim of negligence. The commission observed that in medical negligence cases, expert evidence is crucial, relevant extract reproduced hereunder as :
"It is pertinent to note that in matters of medical negligence, the expert evidence plays a vital role in determining the negligence, if any. This was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SK Jhunjhunwala v.
Dhanwanti Kau & Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 282, decided on 01.10.2018."
12. To resolve the aforesaid controversy, we deem it appropriate to refer to the Expert Opinion by the Medical Board constituted at GTB Hospital, New Delhi, dated 02.11.2011, relevant extract reproduced hereunder as:
"Kindly note that documents pertaining to pre- operative/operative/ post-operative details or discharge slip from Jain Charitable hospital are still not available. Only an unattested photocopy of the referral slip is attached.
However, with the available documents, the committee is of the opinion that dilatation and curettage performed by a qualified doctor for managing cases of abortion is associated with complications. These include trauma to the genital tract, uterus and uncommonly gut. Burst abdomen is also a known complication of laparotomy as has happened in the present case"
13. A bare perusal of the Expert Opinion reflects that the Medical Board has opined that dilatation and curettage in cases of abortion is associated with complications which include trauma to the genital tract, uterus and ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 uncommonly gut. Burst abdomen is also a known complication of laparotomy as has happened in the present case. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049, observed as follows:
"123. The courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. It is true that the medical profession has to an extent become commercialized and there are many doctors who depart from their Hippocratic oath for their selfish ends of making money. However, the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples."
14. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that expert opinion plays a crucial role in adjudication of medical negligence cases as Consumer Commissions are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. A perusal of the record divulges that in compliance with the directions contained in the Martin F. D' Souza case (supra), the District Commission called for an Expert Opinion from the Medical Board at GTB Hospital, wherein no negligence was found on the part of the Appellant.
15. Furthermore, a perusal of the Case Notes at LNJP Hospital (Annexed as Annexure A2 alongwith the Appeal) reflects that Laparotomy procedure was conducted at the LNJP hospital and thereafter, the patient developed the condition of Burst Abdomen. A perusal of the aforesaid notes further reflect that the Treating Doctor at LNJP Hospital has recorded to the effect that there was no bleeding per vaginum (P/V) in the patient when the patient was bought to LNJP hospital from the Appellant hospital and subsequently, the Treating Doctor prepared the patient for Laparotomy procedure. Thus, the contention of the Respondent that the D&C ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 procedure conducted at the Appellant Hospital resulted in the condition of the Burst Abdomen stands disproved.
16. At this juncture, we deem it apposite to take note of the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein it was observed that medical professionals are not liable for negligence if they follow practices acceptable at the time, even if alternative treatments existed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down the elements of medical negligence observed that:
"48. (2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from the one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of the knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used."
ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026
17. What is to be gleaned from the aforesaid judgment is that a claim for negligence calls for a treatment with a difference. It is enough for the medical practitioner to show that the standard of care and the skill attained was that of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill and the treatment did not fall below the generally accepted level/standard of care. The fact that the medical practitioner charged with negligence acted in accordance with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge.
18. In another judgment reported as Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others (2010) 3 SCC 480, a complaint was filed attributing medical negligence to a doctor who performed the surgery but while performing surgery, the tumour was found to be malignant. The patient died later on after prolonged treatment in different hospitals. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"47. The ratio of Bolam case [(1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 118] is that it is enough for the defendant to show that the standard of care and the skill attained was that of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill. The fact that the respondent charged with negligence acted in accordance with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge. Two things are pertinent to be noted. Firstly, 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. Secondly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that point of time on which it is suggested as should have been used.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026
78. It is a matter of common knowledge that after happening of some unfortunate event, there is a marked tendency to look for a human factor 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. A professional deserves total protection. The Penal Code, 1860 has taken care to ensure that people who act in good faith should not be punished. Sections 88, 92 and 370 of the Penal Code give adequate protection to the professionals and particularly medical professionals."
19. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others (2021) SCC Online SC 673 held as under:
"11......Ordinarily an accident means an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence, something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 wherein it is stated that simply because the patient has not favorably responded to a treatment given by doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straight away liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor.
It is further observed therein that sometimes despite best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails and the same does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that the doctor is negligent. Having noted the aforesaid decisions , it is clear that in every case where a mishap or accident takes place, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. To indicate negligence ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception.
20. A perusal of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that when it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient. It is to be noted that a procedure related injury in a medical facility constitutes negligence if the injury is the direct result of a medical provider's failure in providing an acceptable level of care. For instance, a doctor failed to diagnose or misdiagnosed a condition that affects the patient or the doctor used a defective implant, the patient was overmedicated, or prescribed a medication that conflicted with another medication and/or the patient's condition was not assessed or managed correctly etc.
21. The sole basis of finding the Appellants negligent in the present case is by way of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor which would not be applicable herein keeping in view the treatment record produced by the Appellants. For the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur no less important a requirement is that the res must not only bespeak negligence, but pin it on the Appellants. It is clear from the record that the patient was given standard line of treatment i.e. D&C procedure was performed with IV sedation and the products of conception were evacuated and pus was drained completely alongwith USG whole abdomen (screening only). The condition of the patient was reassessed i.e. USG was reviewed and the patient was accordingly examined by other senior specialists surgeons in the morning of 08.06.2010 and the patient was referred to LNJP Hospital for further management. However, in an unfortunate case, a ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 17 FA-1140/ 2013 DR. AJAY JAIN AND ORS. VS KAMAL KUMAR D.O.D.: 15.01.2026 mishap may occur during surgery. Any surgical procedure includes inherent risks and complications and if the surgery does not yield favorable outcomes, the medical practitioner cannot be automatically termed negligent. Here, it is necessary to remark that sufficient material or medical evidence should be made available before an adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that a complication is due to medical negligence. Every complication in a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence.
22. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we opine that no negligence can be carved out on the part of the Appellant. Consequently, the present Appeal stands allowed and the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the District Commission is set aside.
23. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.
24. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
25. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
15.01.2026 L.R.-G.P.K ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 17