The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the result was a failure if the procedure adopted was acceptable to medical science at the time. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant, residing in Australia, underwent dental treatment by the doctor at Dr. Dorwal And Dental...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the result was a failure if the procedure adopted was acceptable to medical science at the time.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, residing in Australia, underwent dental treatment by the doctor at Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital/hospital. The doctor recommended root canal treatment (RCT) and a dental cap for her damaged teeth. Various payments were made to the hospital on different dates, but the hospital failed to provide a consolidated bill even after the treatment was completed, causing her parents to visit the hospital multiple times. The doctor did not properly treat the complainant, necessitating further dental treatment in Australia, including capping that cost Rs. 6,760. This conduct by the hospital and doctor constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs. 26,160/- for the treatment expenses and litigation costs. The district forum allowed the complaint following which the hospital appealed to the State Commission of Rajasthan. The State Commission found no medical negligence and overturned the District Forum's order. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Hospital
The hospital acknowledged providing dental hygiene treatment to the complainant. Her root canal treatment (RCT) was initiated and completed shortly thereafter. A crown for the RCT-treated tooth was recommended and subsequently applied. Upon completion of the treatment, a lump sum bill for Rs. 12,000 was issued. It was argued that the complainant initially stated that her treatment was successful. Later, she requested a review of the treatment and sought a revised bill for Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 12,000, which the hospital refused. The hospital asserted that there was no deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the primary issue was whether there was a deficiency in the dental treatment and billing provided to the complainant by the hospital. The complainant alleged deficiencies in the treatment, leading to additional expenses and inconvenience, and sought compensation for these lapses. Conversely, the hospital asserted that they provided appropriate treatment and that any discrepancies in billing were procedural rather than negligent. The main issue was whether the treatment met accepted standards and if the grievances warranted compensation. Initially, the District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, finding the hospital liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and awarded compensation for treatment expenses, mental harassment, and litigation costs. However, on appeal, the State Commission overturned this decision, concluding there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital. The Commission observed that the Supreme Court laid down certain duties of the doctor in the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi Vs. Dr. Triambak Bapu Godbole and Anr. It was held that a doctor must bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and exercise a reasonable degree of care. A breach of any of these duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The Commission highlighted the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab case, which followed the Bolam's principles. The Supreme Court observed that when a patient suffers a mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor. Even the best professionals sometimes have failures. A doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the result was a failure if the procedure adopted was acceptable to medical science at the time. The Commission also highlighted the Devarakonda Suryasesha Mani v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences case. The Supreme Court held that unless there is specific evidence of a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible to second-guess the medical judgment of doctors. Every death in a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence. The Commission concluded that there was no substantial evidence to establish that the doctor failed to fulfill his duty of care in providing dental treatment in accordance with reasonable medical standards or that any entitled receipts were not issued. Therefore, neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice was established.
The Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Ruchika Sharma Vs. Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital & Anr
Case Number: R.P. No. 1837/2019