Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
11. In nut-shell, the defence taken by the OPs says that complication could occur during the procedure performed on the complainant and hence, the allegation of medical negligence against them was not true. However, this version of the OPs stands belied from the facts stated by them in the written statement. It has been categorically stated that both the doctors OP-2 and OP-3 found the patient to be in a stable, comfortable condition and hence, they decided to discharge her on 6.9.2002 itself, but following the request of the attendants of the patient, they kept her for one more day in the hospital and discharged her on 7.9.2002. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that if the condition of the patient was stable and comfortable, then how she had to pass through the subsequent events and then get admitted in the second hospital, where further surgery was done. It is very clear, therefore, that the OPs miserably failed to manage the condition of the patient, following the operation done by them for the removal of stones from the gallbladder or the gallbladder itself. The State Commission in the impugned order have carried out detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussed the case law on the subject. It has been held in a number of landmark judgments made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Commission that in the cases involving medical negligence, the standard of care expected from medical professionals has to be that of ordinary persons, possessing ordinary skills, In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1; their lordships carried out a detailed analysis of the doctrine of negligence in the context of medical profession. They also referred to the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the said case. In the facts and circumstance of the present case also, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it is very clear that the patient was discharged by the OP-1 Hospital, even when her condition was not stable and she had to be admitted almost immediately in the other hospital for further treatment. The said hospital detected, after carrying out certain tests that there was negligence by the OPs, as there was disruption of bile duct at the level of cystic duct, which resulted in leakage of bile into abdominal cavity. It is very clear, therefore, that the allegation of medical negligence against OP-1 to 3 stands amply proved from the evidence on record. The State Commission, after carrying out a detailed analysis of the expenditure made by the complainant, rightly came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs should be paid to the complainant by the OP-1 to 3 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.