National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Ranajan Sarkar vs Mr. Himadri Kr. Guha Roy on 7 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28.10.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO 1222 OF 2023
(Against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in CC No 479 of 2018 by the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal)
Dr. Ranjan Sarkar
AMRI Hospital Limited
JC-16 & 17, KB-24,
Salt Lake City, Sector-Ill,
Kolkata-700098
....Appellant
V
1. Mr. Himadri Kumar Guha Roy
13, Purbayan, Canal South Road
Chingrighata, Kolkata-700105
2&3 OMITTED
4.Manipal Hospitals Dhakuria
(Represented by CEO),
P-4 & 5, C.LT. Scheme-LXXH,Block-A
Gariahat Road, (Beside Dhakuria Bridge),
Kolkata-700029
(As per amended memo dated 16.06.2025)
...Respondents
HON'BLE DR. INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner Ms. Binota Roy, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent No 1 : Mr. Himadri Kr. Guha Roy in person
Dated: 07th April, 2026
FirstAppeal No 1222/2023 Page 1
ORDER
DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The relevant facts of the case are that Manju Guha Roy aged about 67 years who was wife of the complainant/the respondent no 1/Mr. Himadri Kumar Guha (herein after referred to as "the respondent no 1 ") was patient of Diabetic Mellitus Type-2 and due to this her both kidneys got damaged. Manju Guha was under dialysis and her first dialysis was started in Belle Vue Hospital, Kolkata. Earlier three dialysis were conducted in a week which later on reduced to two dialysis in a week. Manju Guha was later shifted to AMRI Hospital, Salt Lake for dialysis on 04.11.2014. The complainant used to pay medical charges. The appellant/ the opposite party no. 1/ Dr. Ranjan Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is a Nephrologist and Head of the Dialysis Unit at AMRI Hospital. The dialysis of Manju Guha on 02.12.2016 could not be done due to failure of the perm catheter. Thereafter son of the respondent no 1 contacted the appellant who advised that the patient be admitted in the hospital for replacement of the catheter but the respondent no 1 suspected that the hospital admission was might be purely for commercial reasons and as such the respondent no 1 lost faith in the appellant. The catheter was subsequently replaced on 05.12.2016 by Dr. S. Chatterjee at Jems Long Clinic Private Limited and Manju Guha was discharged within two hours after completion of the procedure. Manju Guha in the last week of January 2017 developed high fever due to infection from the hospital catheter but the appellant despite being informed did not provide any formal treatment. The respondent no 1 thereafter consulted Dr. Pratik Das, a reputed Nephrologist at NH Rabindranath Tagore Hospital, on 31.01.2017 who after examining Manju Guha and assessing all relevant medical records prescribed Chest X-Ray (PA First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 2 view), single-use dialyzer and Vancomycin Injection (1 gm) after haemodialysis with 100 ml NS for the following three dialysis sessions. The next dialysis was scheduled for 03.02.2017.
1.1 The respondent no 1 prepared for dialysis on 02.02.2017 by purchasing the prescribed Vancomycin Injection and other required medications. However, on 03.02.2017 when son of the respondent no 1 presented the prescription to the dialysis technician then the appellant directed that Vancomycin should not be administered since it was prescribed by another nephrologist. Consequently, the prescribed dose of Vancomycin was withheld both on 03.02.2017 and on subsequent dialysis dates.
The respondent no 1 along with his son on 04.02.2017 met appellant to enquire about the refusal to administer Vancomycin. The appellant stated that he was not bound to follow the prescription given by another doctor. The appellant routinely prescribed a less potent antibiotic, Linezolid 600 mg and never recommended Vancomycin injection. The appellant after a prolonged period of 45 days on 14.03.2017 finally administered Vancomycin injection without reviewing any relevant test reports. The appellant no 1 on the same date advised the respondent no 1 to conduct tests for CRP, full blood count, central blood culture, and peripheral blood culture. The blood samples were taken on same day which indicated that haemoglobin level of Manju Guha was 6.7 g/dl. The appellant despite this critical condition did not advise any immediate blood transfusion or administration of additional Vancomycin doses.
The subsequent dialysis on 24.03.2017 revealed further decline in haemoglobin to 5.3 g/dl but the appellant did not consider this an emergency and deferred the transfusion until 28.03.2017 and on said date, two units of PRBC were finally transfused which proved to be fatal. Manju Guha could undergo only one more dialysis on 31.03.2017 before passing away on 03.04.2017 due to cardiac failure.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 3
. t
1.2 The respondent no 1 lodged FIR at Bidhannagar Police Station on 08.04.2017 against the appellant alleging medical negligence in the treatment of Manju Guha (herein after referred to as "the deceased"). Subsequently, the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Barasat, constituted an Enquiry Committee to investigate the matter. The respondent no 1 appeared before the Committee on 20.09.2017 and furnished all relevant medical records explaining in detail the negligence committed by the appellant. The Enquiry Committee's submitted report and made observations that there was delay in blood transfusion.
Subsequently, the expert opinion of Dr. Kanailal Karmakar from the Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital, was sought. Dr. Karmakar opined that Vancomycin is commonly used as an empirical treatment for suspected Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections (CRBSI) and its dosage, duration, and administration depend on clinical judgment, severity of illness, and drug sensitivity. However, in case of the deceased Vancomycin was not administered on 03.02.2017, even though it was clinically indicated and commonly prescribed in such circumstances. It was noted that although haemoglobin of the deceased was dropped to 6.7 g% on 17.03.2017, the appellant did not arrange for a timely transfusion, allegedly due to ongoing infection and no clear medical justification was provided for withholding the transfusion under those circumstances. The haemoglobin level further dropped to 5.3 g% on 24.03.2017 and a transfusion was advised but transfusion was carried out only on 28.03.2017 which was an undue and fatal delay. There was gross negligence and deficiency in medical service on the part of the appellant. The respondent no 1 being aggrieved filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") titled as Himadri Kumar Guha Roy V Dr.Ranjan Sarkar & others bearing CC no 479/18 before West Bengal State First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 4 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") seeking appropriate reliefs and compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
2. The appellant filed written version wherein stated that he is specialized in the field of nephrology and was associated with ANRI Hospitals. The present complaint is not maintainable as based on concocted and baseless allegations. The respondent no 1 has raised complicated issues pertaining to medical negligence which cannot be decided under the Act. The deceased had consulted the appellant on 26.08.2014 at OPD of AMRI Hospital for continuation of dialysis with past history of Type-II Diabetes, Hypertension and Chronic Kidney Disease and was on haemodialysis. The deceased was dialysing with a perm catheter and was advised to have haemodialysis thrice in a week and to have AV Fistula insertion at an early date as a permanent Vascular Access for maintenance dialysis. However, the deceased continued to dialysis twice a week. The deceased was advised to admit in the hospital for assessment of malfunctioning of perm catheter. It was planned to insert a temporary dialysis line and performed a CT Venogram and reposition a perm catheter in either of the Jagular Veins and or attempt to create an AV Fistula which has less incidents of infection and gives a longer/permanent solution as Vascular access for maintenance haemodialysis. The deceased refused to admit at AMRI Hospital under the appellant and went elsewhere for insertion of perm catheter which was done in a femoral vein.
2.1 The deceased in the last week of January, 2017 had consulted Dr. Pratik Das without knowledge of the appellant for high fever and the deceased after consultation came back for dialysis under the appellant. The deceased was not having fever and was stable. The deceased remained absent for regular dialysis at AMRI Hospital from 24.01.2017 till 03.02.2017 and was having reuse dialysis i.e. the dialyser was being reused. The deceased on 03.02.2017 was advised injection Vancomycin 1 mg after each dialysis for 3 doses. The First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 5 ( appellant had suggested not using Vancomycin as the deceased was not having fever. Vancomycin is used in resistant kind of infections and its level should be checked prior to deciding next dose in the patients who have got kidney dysfunctions especially who are on maintenance haemodialysis and routine use of Vancomycin is not recommended for infection of unknown Aetiology. Vancomycin does not have any role in preventing fresh infections. The appellant in February, 2017 was informed by the son of the respondent no 1 about high fever of the deceased. The appellant advised blood culture and sensitivity along with full blood count and CRP test to assess source and severity of infection. The appellant also advised to start Linezolid which is a potent anti-staphylococcal antibiotic. The deceased did not comply with advice of the appellant as fever was subsided with Linezolid. 2.2 The deceased on 14.03.2017 had complained of high fever and vomiting and accordingly blood was sent for full blood count, CRP, culture and sensitivity from perm catheter. The deceased was having rigor and high fever on dialysis. The haemoglobin was 6.7 and TLC was 14.2 and CRP of 332.14. The deceased was advised for admission in hospital for intravenous antibiotics. The deceased was given one dose of Vancomycin in the last hour of dialysis which was purchased from the store by the appellant. The relatives of the deceased had refused admission and the deceased was taken to home. The acute infection can drop haemoglobin in a patient of renal failure. The deceased was continued on linezolid. The femoral catheters are much more prone to infections compared to jugular or subclavian lines. The blood test conducted on 24.03.2017 showed further drop in haemoglobin to 5.3. The deceased was advised blood transfusion on next date of dialysis. The deceased on 28.03.2017 received 2 units of packed red blood cells during dialysis. The transfusion was initially avoided as the deceased was septic and asymptomatic. The appellant took reasonable care of the deceased and had done which any First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 6 reasonable prudent medical practitioner would have done. The appellant has denied other allegations as stated in the complaint.
3. The respondent no 1 filed affidavit of evidence and the appellant also filed his affidavit in evidence before the state commission.
4. The State Commission vide order dated 27.09.2023 allowed the complaint. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced verbatim as under:
59. At this juncture how much amount regarding compensation is to be awarded in favour of the complainant that should be decided by this Commission. Be that as it may for deciding the same another important point/issue should be reflected at the behest of the complainant. In his pleadings, the complainant has urged that he lost his faith and confidence upon OP No. 1/ doctor attached to the AMRI Hospital and the catheter has been changed by DR. S. Chatterjee on 05/12/2016. But we are astonished by thinking that after losing faith and confidence upon the OP No 17 doctor, the complainant, thereafter several occasions, has visited the Amri Hospital for dialysis of the patient/wife under care of OP No.l/doctor Rather under such circumstances, we simply find his confidence and faith upon OP No 1/doctor regarding medical treatment of his wife since deceased and to some extent we think that the complainant has failed to act prudently,
60. Be it mentioned here that in his whole averment in the petition of complaint we find allegations against only op no 1/Dr. Ranjan Sarkar but no allegations have been enshrined in the petition of complaint against the other opposite parties and as such no order should be passed against the other opposite parties te ops no 2 to 4.
61. Keeping in view of the above observations and for finality of litigation we are constrained to allow the instant consumer case on congest against the OP No.l/doctor with costs and dismiss the same on contest against the OPs No. 2 to 4 without any order as to costs. Accordingly, ORDERED That OP No.l/ Dr. Ranjan Sarkar is directed to pay compensation First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 7 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) only to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of the order.
The OP No.l/Dr. Sarkar is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) only to the complainant within the aforesaid stipulated period of time in default the whole awarded amount i.e Rs.5,20,000/- (five lakh twenty thousand) only shall carry interest 10% pa from the date of filing of the consumer case (02/07/2018) till full realization In case of non compliance of the aforesaid order by the OP No.l, the complainant is at liberty to put the order execution, The consumer case stands disposed of as per above observations.
5. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present First Appeal bearing no 1222 of 2021 titled as Dr. Ranjan Sarkar V Mr. Himadri Kumar Guha Roy& others under section 51 of the Act before this Commission. The appellant challenged the impugned order primarily on grounds that impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. The State Commission in para no 2 of the impugned judgment grossly erred in observing that both kidneys of the deceased got damaged due to several dialyses. The dialysis as per medical science is initiated only after substantial damage to the kidneys and a dialysis does not damage a kidney. The State Commission in impugned order could not appreciate actual medical facts. The State Commission has made impugned observation that Hb level came down from 6.7 to 5.3 vide blood report dated 24.03.2017 and the blood transfusion could not be initiated due to presence of infection within the blood stream. It is medically established that Hb level can be lowered due to infection. The blood transfusion also based on multiple factors apart from low level of Hb. The State Commission wrongly placed reliance on opinion dated 11.04.2018 given by Dr. S. Guha Roy which should have been rejected. The appellant rendered the medical treatment in accordance with the medical protocol. The impugned judgment was passed on conjectures and surmises and without application of judicial mind. The impugned judgment First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 8 is bad in law and cannot be sustained. It was prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and appeal be allowed.
6. We have heard Ms. Binota Roy, Advocate for the appellant and the respondent no 1. Himadri Kr. Guha Roy in person. We have also perused the the impugned order passed by the State Commission besides perusing written submission submitted by the contesting parties.
7. The counsel for the appellant besides referring factual background of the case in argument attacked the impugned order and stated that the State Commission in impugned judgment made wrong observation that both kidneys of the deceased got damaged due to several dialyses and argued that as per medical science dialysis is initiated only after substantial damage to the kidneys. The State Commission wrongly observed that no blood transfusion was done when blood report dated 24.03.2017 indicated haemoglobin level at 5.3 which was much lower than biological reference indicated 12.0-15.0 and the counsel argued that a blood transfusion cannot be initiated owing to presence of infection in the blood stream and presence of infection may also cause lowering of Hb level. The counsel also attacked reliance of the State Commission re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 given by Dr. S. Guha. The counsel argued that CMOH has formed an Enquiry Committee comprising of Dr. Swati Pramanick, ACMOH, Bidhannagar; Dr. Partha Pratima Guha, Superintendent Saltlake SDH and Dr. S.K. Guha Roy, Physician Saltlake SDH. It was further stated that Committee vide Report dated 25.09.2017 observed regarding usage of Vancomycin that the opinion of the nephrologist ought to be taken and there was delay in blood transfusion. Thereafter Dr. S. Guha Roy was requested for re-opinion and said re-opinion was not given by the Committee and was given in individual capacity by Dr. S. Guha Roy. The counsel for the appellant also argued that respondent no 1 did not produce any expert evidence to substantiate allegation of medical negligence against the appellant.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 9 7.1 The counsel for the appellant also argued that the impugned judgment was not passed in proper perspective and wrongly placed reliance on opinion given by Dr. S. Guha Roy who was not subjected to cross-examination. The appellant has treated the deceased as per medical protocol and procedure. It was argued that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
8. The respondent no 1 advanced oral submissions and also submitted written synopsis. The respondent no 1 besides referring factual position argued that the appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order on grounds that it was passed without considering facts in proper perspective and is based on conjectures and surmises and further re-opinion of Dr. S. Guha Roy dated 27.09.23 was inconclusive and he was not an appointed expert. The respondent no 1 argued that Dr. S. Guha Roy was appointed by ACMOH following direction of CMOH and he was appointed to report medical negligence in the treatment of the deceased and the appointment of Dr. S. Guha Roy was lawful and his re-opinion was not erroneous. It was further argued that there was definite delay in transfusing blood to the deceased despite fact that Hb level of the deceased was dropped down rapidly and referred inquiry report. It was vehemently argued that the appellant was negligent in the medical treatment of the deceased and as such present appeal be dismissed.
9. It is relevant to refer relevant judicial pronouncement pertaining to medical negligence. The negligence comprises three important constituents which are i) a legal duty to exercise due care, ii) breach of the duty and iii) consequential damages and medical negligence can be explained as a want of reasonable degree of care or skill or willful negligence on the part of the medical practitioner in the treatment of a patient with whom a relationship of professional attendant is established, so as to lead to bodily injury or to loss of life. The absence or lack of care that a reasonable person should have taken in the circumstance of the case is held to be negligent. The basic principle relating to negligence by professionals is known as the Bolam Rule which was laid First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 10 down in Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 1 WLR 582 as under:-
(W)here you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he as not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and profession to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art 9.1 The Supreme Court of India also considered the magnitude of medical negligence in various pronouncements. The Supreme Court in an action for negligence in tort against a surgeon in Laxman Balakrishna Joshi V Trimbak Bapu Godbole & another, 1969 (1) SCR 206 held that the duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear and a person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. It was further held that such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties which are a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment and a breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. It was also held that the practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.
The relationship between a medical practitioner and a patient carries within it certain degree of mutual confidence and trust. The Supreme Court also observed that section 14 of the Act indicates that the reliefs that can be granted on a complaint filed under the Act in respect of deficiency in service and the compensation can be awarded for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including medical negligence.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 11 9.2 The Supreme Court in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa V State of Maharashtra and others, (1996) 2 SCC 634 held as under:-
The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence.
9.3 The Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab extensively discussed negligence by professionals including doctors. The Supreme Court observed as under:-
In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skill or skilled persons generally. Any task which is required to be performed with a special skill would generally be admitted or undertaken to be performed only if the person possesses the requisite skill for performing that task. Any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a particular level of learning to be called a professional of that branch, impliedly assures the person dealing with him that the skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised and exercised with reasonable degree of care and caution. He does not assure his client of the result. A lawyer does not tell his client that the client shall win the case in all circumstances. 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 practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is all what the person approaching the First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 12 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. 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 necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.
9.4 The Supreme Court also referred Bolam case and stated that it is cited and dealt with in several judicial pronouncements. It was observed that the classical statement of law in Bolam's case has been widely accepted as decisive of the standard of care required both of professional men generally and medical practitioners in particular. It has been applied to as touchstone to test the pleas of medical negligence. 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 a defendant charged with negligence acted in accord with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge. The Supreme Court further observed that a mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. An error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. 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. It was also observed that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his career.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Paee 13 9.5 The Supreme Court also discussed rule of res ipsa loquitur and stated that it is not of universal application and has to be applied with extreme care and caution to the cases of professional negligence and in particular that of the doctors otherwise it would be counter-productive. The doctor cannot be held liable by applying doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed. The Supreme Court has summed up the conclusions as under:-
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused 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 Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.
(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 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 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 First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 14 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.
(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the 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. 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. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down inBolam's case [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India.
9.6 The Supreme Court in Neeraj Sud & another V Jaswinder Singh (minor) & another. Civil Appeal No 272 of 2012 decided on 25.01.2024 after referring Bolam case and Jacob Mathews V State of Punjab in context to medical negligence held as under:-
11. Deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of the fact that the surgery performed or the treatment given to the patient was not proper or inappropriate or that there was some negligence in administering the same. In case of surgery or such treatment it is not necessary that in every case the condition of the patient would improve and the surgery is successful to the satisfaction of the patient. It is very much possible that in some rare cases complications of such nature arise but that by itself does not establish any actionable negligence on part of the medical expert.
14. It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage.
However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 15 professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
15. A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him.
16. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence. In a celebrated and very often cited decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen's Bench Division^, it was observed that a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with the acceptable norms of practice unless there is evidence of a medical body of skilled persons in the field opining that the accepted principles/procedure were not followed. The test so laid down popularly came to be known as Bolam's test and stands approved by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another.
17. In Jacob Mathews (supra) this Court held that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence.
18. In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.
9.7 The Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma V Batra Hospital, (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) observed that medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 16 but these benefits are attended by considerable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. It was further observed that the professional should be held liable for his act or omission, if negligent, is to make life safer and to eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in future but at the same time courts have to be extremely careful to ensure that unnecessarily professionals are not harassed and they will not be able to carry out their professional duties without fear. The Supreme Court in Martin F. D'Souza V Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 observed that simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse. It was also observed in this case that 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.
9.8 The Supreme Court in Deep Nursing Home and another V Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC1934 which is also referred by the counsel for the complainant, after referring Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab and Martin F. D'Souza V Mohd. Ishfaq observed as under:-
23. As pointed out in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and anotherb, simply because a patient did not favourably respond to the treatment given by a physician or if a surgery failed, the doctor cannot be held liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This edict was reiterated in Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd.
Ishfaq wherein, it was pointed out that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to a patient as the reputation of that professional First Appeal No 1222/2023 Dnno 1 7 would be at stake and a single failure may cost him or her dear in that lapse. It was also pointed out that sometimes, despite best efforts, the treatment by a doctor may fail but that does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he or she is. It was also pointed out that Courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. While acknowledging that the medical profession had been commercialised to some extent and there were doctors who depart from their Hippocratic Oath for their selfish ends of making money, this Court held that the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples.
24. On the same lines, in Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and others vs. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and others , 2022 SCC Online SC 1608 it was held that unless a complainant is able to establish a specific course of conduct, suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctor on the line of treatment which was administered and, in the absence of such material disclosing medical negligence, the Court cannot form a view at variance, as every death in the institutionalised environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.
9.9 The Supreme Court in Jyoti Devi V Suket Hospital, (2024) 8 SCC 655 observed as under:-
The Law on Medical Negligence
13. Three factors required to prove medical negligence, as recently observed by this Court in M.A Biviji v. Sunita, (2024) 2 SCC 242 following the landmark pronouncement in Jacob Matthew v. State of Punjab9 are:
37. As can be culled out from above, the three essential ingredients in determining an act of medical negligence are:
(1) a duty of care extended to the complainant, (2) breach of that duty of care, and (3) resulting damage, injury or harm caused to the complainant attributable to the said breach of duty.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 18 However, a medical practitioner will be held liable for negligence only in circumstances when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner."
14. To hold a doctor liable, this Court in Dr. Mrs. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi observed:
"31.... a medical practitioner is not to 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 to another. In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment. There could be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command. At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Observations in Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh, (2011)10SCC291 are also instructive. Bopanna J., writing for the Court held:
11. "...It is necessary that the hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in unfortunate cases, though death may occur and if it is alleged to be due to medical negligence and a claim in that regard is made, it is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at a conclusion."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The issue which requires determination is that whether there exists any gross negligence on the part of the appellant in the treatment of the deceased who was wife of the respondent no 1.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 19
11. It is necessary to refer factual position of the case before determining negligence of the appellant. The deceased was a patient of Diabetic Mellitus Type-2 and her both kidneys were damaged. The deceased was under dialysis and was shifted to AMRI Hospital for dialysis on 04.11.2014. The appellant is a Nephrologist and Head of the Dialysis Unit at AMRI Hospital. The deceased was dialysing with a perm catheter and was advised to have haemodialysis thrice in a week but the deceased continued to dialysis twice a week. The deceased could not be subjected to dialysis on 02.12.2016 due to failure of the perm catheter. The respondent no 1 advised that the deceased be admitted in the hospital for replacement of the catheter which was subsequently replaced on 05.12.2016 by Dr. S. Chatterjee at Jems Long Clinic Private Limited. The deceased in the last week of January 2017 developed high fever due to infection from the hospital catheter and consulted Dr. Pratik Das, a Nephrologist at NH Rabindranath Tagore Hospital on 31.01.2017 who prescribed single-use dialyzer and Vancomycin Injection (1 gm) after haemodialysis. The deceased after consultation came back for dialysis under the appellant. The appellant on 03.02.2017 directed that Vancomycin should not be administered to the deceased and prescribed another antibiotic namely Linezolid 600 mg. The deceased on 14.03.2017 had complained of high fever and her blood was sent for full blood count, CRP, culture and sensitivity from perm catheter. The appellant on 14.03.2017 administered Vancomycin injection and also advised for CRP, full blood count, central blood culture, and peripheral blood culture of the deceased. The blood report indicated haemoglobin level of the deceased at 6.7 g/dl. The appellant did not advise any immediate blood transfusion.
The dialysis conducted on 24.03.2017 revealed further decline in haemoglobin to 5.3 g/dl. The appellant on 28.03.2017 transfused two units of PRBC. The deceased expired on 03.04.2017 due to cardiac failure. The Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Barasat, constituted an Enquiry First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 20 Committee to investigate the matter and the Enquiry Committee in its Report observed that the appellant used Vancomycin after HD on 14.03.2017 and whether Vancomycin is routinely prescribed during a catheter wound infection following HD is to be verified by Nephrologist specialist and further there was delay in blood transfusion. Dr. Karmakar also opined that Vancomycin is commonly used as an empirical treatment for suspected Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections (CRBSI). The haemoglobin level of the deceased was further dropped to 5.3 g% on 24.03.2017 and transfusion was carried out only on 28.03.2017.
12. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission referred blood count report dated 24.03.2017 which indicated that the haemoglobin level of the deceased was reduced to 5.3 but blood transfusion was done which caused gradual deteriorating condition of deceased. The deceased was transfused two units of PRBC on 28.03.2017. The State Commission also referred report of inquiry report dated 25.09.2017 and observed that there was delay in blood transfusion as per report dated 25.09.2017. The State Commission opined that there was definite delay in transfusion of blood to the deceased despite dropping of Hb level rapidly. The State Commission on basis of reports also observed that injection Vancomycin could have been best option but was not given to the deceased due to untenable reason. The State Commission ultimately held that there was medical negligence in delayed blood transfusion on the part of the appellant.
13. It is also apparent that the respondent no 1 made written complaint at PS Biddhannagar South regarding the treatment of the deceased under the appellant and in pursuance of the complaint relevant documents were requisitioned from AMRI Hospital. The Additional Chief Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department was also requested by concerned police authority for sending complaint along with medical treatment papers to CMOH for enquiry. The Enquiry Committee comprising Dr. Swati Pramanick, ACMOH, First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 21 Bidhannagar, Dr. Partha Pratim Guha, Superintendent, Salt Lake SDH and Dr. S. K. Guha Roy, Physician, Salt Lake SDH submitted the Report dated 25.09.2017. The respondent no 1 also appeared before the Committee. The Committee made observations as under:-
• Dr. Sarkar stated that he did not prescribe Vancomycin for fear of Vancomycin resistant bacteria. It was also observed that Dr. Sarkar used Vancomycin empirically after HD on 14.03.2017 which he advocated against earler. Whether Vancomycin is routinely prescribed during a catheter wound infection (which is hospital acquired) following HD is to be verified by Nephrologist specialist.
• There was delay in blood transfusion.
13.1 Dr. Kanai Lal Karmakar, In charge of Nephrology Unit, Department of Nephrology, RGKMC&H in opinion dated 29.10.2017 stated as under:-
Vancomycin injection is commonly use as an empirical treatment for suspected Catheter Related Blood Stream Infection (CRBS1) but, its time, dose, duration of use depends on clinical judgements, severity of illness and sensitivity of the drug assessed by treating clinician as there is potential risk of antibiotic resistance.
13.2 ACMOH, Bidhannagar vide letter dated 24.02.2018 requested Dr. S. Guha Roy to submit re-opinion regarding the opinion submitted by Dr. Kanai Lal Karmakar. Dr. S. Guha Roy in re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 in conclusion opined that the deceased had an unfortunate death and direct cause of her death could be due to a number of reasons either alone or in combination considering the fact that she was suffering from chronic kidney disease and undergoing HD. He further opined that injection Vancomycin could have been the best option was not given to the patient i.e. the deceased because of untenable reason. Dr. S. Guha Roy further observed that the blood transfusion was much delayed in spite of the fact that Hb of the patient dropped rapidly. Dr. S. Guha Roy ultimately opined that whether these two acts of omission could be First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 22 considered as a matter of medical negligence as to be examined further by experts of higher centre.
14. It is reflecting that the respondent no 1 is having two fold grievances against the appellant that the appellant did not administer injection Vancomycin to the deceased and there was delay in blood transfusion to the deceased.
15. Regarding administration of injection Vancomycin it is appearing that the deceased developed high fever in the last week of January 2017 due to infection and consulted Dr. Pratik Das, a Nephrologist at NH Rabindranath Tagore Hospital on 31.01.2017 who prescribed Vancomycin Injection (1 gm) after haemodialysis. However, the appellant on 03.02.2017 directed that Vancomycin should not be administered to the deceased and prescribed another antibiotic namely Linezolid 600 mg. The deceased again on 14.03.2017 developed high fever and the appellant on 14.03.2017 administered Vancomycin injection to the deceased. The respondent no 1 alleged that Dr. Pratik Das on 31.01.2017 prescribed Vancomycin Injection (1 gm) after haemodialysis which was discontinued by the appellant who prescribed a less potent antibiotic, Linezolid 600 mg. The appellant after a prolonged period of 45 days on 14.03.2017 finally administered Vancomycin injection and the appellant despite critical condition did not advise administration of additional Vancomycin doses which constituted medical negligence on the part of the appellant. The appellant pleaded that the appellant on 03.02. 2017 suggested for not using Vancomycin as the deceased was not having fever. The appellant further stated that Vancomycin is used in resistant kind of infections and its level should be checked prior to deciding next dose in the patients who have got kidney dysfunctions especially who are on maintenance haemodialysis and routine use of Vancomycin is not recommended for infection of unknown Aetiology. Vancomycin does not have any role in preventing fresh infections.
The appellant in February, 2017 also advised to start Linezolid which is a First Appeal No 1222/2023 Pace 23 potent anti-staphylococcal antibiotic but the deceased did not comply with advice of the appellant as fever was subsided with Linezolid. The deceased on 14.03.2017 again developed high fever and the deceased was given one dose of Vancomycin in the last hour of dialysis but the deceased was continued on linezolid.
15.1 The State Commission in impugned order regarding use of Vancomycin observed that due to lack of particular opinion did not accept it as medical negligence on the part of the appellant. The Enquiry Committee in the Report dated 25.09.2017 also observed that the appellant stated that he did not prescribe Vancomycin for fear of Vancomycin resistant bacteria and used Vancomycin empirically after HD on 14.03.2017. It was opined that whether Vancomycin is routinely prescribed during a catheter wound infection following HD is to be verified by Nephrologist specialist. Dr. Kanai Lal Karmakar in opinion dated 29.10.2017 stated that Vancomycin injection is commonly used as an empirical treatment for suspected Catheter Related Blood Stream Infection (CRBSI) but, its time, dose, duration of use depends on clinical judgements, severity of illness and sensitivity of the drug assessed by treating clinician as there is potential risk of antibiotic resistance. Dr. S. Guha Roy in re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 opined that the injection Vancomycin could have been the best option but was not given to the deceased because of untenable reason. We after considering material on record are of the opinion that there is no definite material to conclude that the failure on the part the appellant to prescribe injection Vancomycin before 14.03.2017 constitutes negligence on the part of the appellant. If the appellant as per his medical knowledge and expertise preferred Linezolid over injection Vancomycin before 14.03.2017 cannot be stated to be medical negligence. The appellant cannot be guilty of medical negligence for not prescribing injection Vancomycin.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 24
16. We shall now consider important issue that delay in blood transfusion by the appellant constitutes medical negligence. The State Commission in impugned order also observed that delay in blood transfusion to some extent tantamount to medical negligence on the part of the appellant. The respondent no 1 alleged that the appellant on 14.03.2017 advised the respondent no 1 to conduct tests for CRP, full blood count, central blood culture, and peripheral blood culture and report indicated that haemoglobin level of the deceased at 6.7 g/dl but the appellant despite this critical condition did not advise any immediate blood transfusion.
It was also alleged that the subsequent dialysis on 24.03.2017 revealed further decline in haemoglobin to 5.3 g/dl but the appellant did not consider this an emergency and deferred the transfusion until 28.03.2017 and on 28.03.2017, two units of PRBC were transfused which was a fatal delay. The respondent no 1 in written synopsis also stated regarding Hb level of the deceased that it was 9.6 on 31.01.2017; 6.7 on 14.03.2017 and 5.3 on 24.03.2017. The respondent no 1 vehemently argued that delay in blood transfusion proved to be fatal for the deceased. The appellant although did not dispute regarding rapid fall in Hb level of the deceased but alleged that the acute infection can drop haemoglobin in a patient of renal failure and on 24.03.2017 advised blood transfusion to the deceased and the deceased on 28.03.2017 was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells during dialysis. The appellant also alleged that the transfusion was initially avoided as the deceased was septic and asymptomatic. The appellant in grounds of appeal also stated that the blood transfusion could not be initiated due to presence of infection within the blood stream and it is medically established that Hb level can be lowered due to infection. It was also stated that the blood transfusion also based on multiple factors apart from low level of Hb. The counsel for the appellant during argument attacked finding of the State Commission that no blood transfusion was done when blood report dated First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 25 24.03.2017 indicated haemoglobin level at 5.3 which was much lower than biological reference indicated 12.0-15.0 and argued that a blood transfusion could not be initiated due to presence of infection in the blood stream and presence of infection may also cause lowering of Hb level. The counsel for the appellant also attacked reliance of the State Commission on re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 given by Dr. S. Guha.
16.1 It is relevant to refer report dated 25.09.2017 prepared by the Enquiry Committee comprising Dr. Swati Pramanick, ACMOH, Bidhannagar; Dr. Partha Pratim Guha, Superintendent, Salt Lake SDH and Dr. S. K. Guha Roy, Physician, Salt Lake SDH wherein the Committee observed that there was delay in blood transfusion. Dr. S. Guha Roy in re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 in conclusion opined that t the blood transfusion was much delayed in spite of the fact that Hb of the patient i.e. the deceased dropped rapidly. It is very much apparent from above mentioned findings/opinion of expert doctors that the appellant caused delay in blood transfusion to the deceased despite the fact that Hb level of the deceased was rapidly falling. This omission on the part of the appellant amounts to medical negligence qua the deceased. Although the appellant stated and was also argued on behalf of the appellant that Hb level can be lower due to acute infection and blood transfusion depends on multiple factors but no convincing reason is given by the appellant in causing delay in blood transfusion particularly when the haemoglobin (Hb) of the deceased was rapidly. We are not convinced by the contention and arguments raised on behalf of the appellant to justify delay in blood transfusion of the deceased. There no reason to discard re-opinion dated 11.04.2018 given by Dr. S. Guha Roy who himself was a qualified nephrologist. There was no requirement of expert opinion to be furnished by the respondent no 1 as contended by the appellant due to reason that members of the Expert Committee and Dr. S. Guha Roy were qualified and expert doctors. We are in agreement with the finding of First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 26 the State Commission that delay in blood transfusion to the deceased to some extent amount to negligence.
17. A doctor is under an obligation to provide high quality, ethical medical care to the patients which involves diagnosis of illness and its appropriate treatment. A doctor is supposed to perform recognized medical procedures with skill and care with follow up actions and also to educate patients about their health. The doctors must treat patients attentively and consciously. The deceased lost life due to cardiac arrest as the appellant did not take appropriate timely steps for transfusion of the blood despite rapid falling of haemoglobin level. The deceased was suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) and was under the treatment of the appellant. The appellant despite being qualified and experienced nephrologist failed to act like a reasonable man on considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs and as per Bolam Rule failed to exercise the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man in the treatment of the deceased though the appellant pleaded that he followed standard medical procedure and protocol and procedure which are acceptable to the medical profession. The appellant is guilty of medical negligence as well as deficiency of service in the treatment of the deceased. We accordingly upheld the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
18. The State Commission vide impugned order directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) to the respondent no 1 within 60 days from the date of passing of the order. The appellant was further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) only to the respondent no 1 within said stipulated period of time and in default the awarded amount i.e. Rs.5,20,000/- (five lakh twenty thousand) shall carry interest 10% pa from the date of filing of the consumer case (02/07/2018) till full realization.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 27 18.1 The Supreme Court in Jyoti Devi V Suket Hospital considered issue of determination of the quantum of compensation. It was observed that a balance in determining compensation has to be struck between the demands of the person claiming compensation and the interests of those liable to pay compensation in cases of medical negligence. The Supreme Court referred Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences V Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC1 wherein it was held as under:-
88. We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned.
89. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualised. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller-coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard.
90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.
First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 28 18.2 The Supreme Court in Jyoti Devi V Suket Hospital refers the concept of just compensation and observed that the idea of compensation is based on restitutio in integrum, which means, make good the loss suffered, so far as money is able to do so, or, in other words, take the receiver of such compensation, back to a position, as if the loss/injury suffered by them hadn't occurred. The Supreme Court further referred Sarla Verma V DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that compensation doesn't acquire the quality of being just simply because the Tribunal awarding it believes it to be so. The compensation to be just it must be (i) adequate, (ii) fair and (iii) equitable in the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court reiterated this proposition inBalram Prasad VKunal Saha, (2014)1 SCC384; V. Krishnakumar V State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 9 SCC 388 and Nand Kishore Prasad V Mohib Hamidi, (2019)6SCC512. The Supreme Court in Jyoti Yadav V Suket Hospital further observed that to be qualifies as just compensation has to be considered in the facts of each case and the Supreme Court in Balram Prasad was skeptical about using a straightjacket multiplier method for determining the quantum of compensation in medical negligence claims.
18.3 We after considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case are of opinion that the State Commission has awarded adequate compensation to the respondent no 1. The respondent no 1 also did not plead for enhancement of compensation. The appellant is directed to pay entire awarded amount within 60 days failing which entire awarded amount shall carry simple interest @ 9% pa till realization.
19. We after considering the material on record including rival contentions of the parties and arguments advanced of their behalf are of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly held regarding medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the State Commission which is First Appeal No 1222/2023 Page 29 f well reasoned. Accordingly, present Appeal is dismissed. The pending applications,, if any also stand disposed of.
I Sd/-
! (DR. INDERJIT SINGH)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
I
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.) i
MEMBER
I
SSB/MS/B-3/CA V/Reserved
FirstAppeal No 1222/2023 Page 30