Dr. S.K.Jhunjhunwala vs Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar

2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

3. The   appellant   was   the   opposite   party   No.1 whereas   the   respondent   No.1   herein   was   the complainant   and   respondent   No.2   herein   was   the opposite  party No.2 in the complaint out of which this appeal arises.

5. Respondent No.1(complainant)­a lady, who,  at the relevant time, was residing in Calcutta felt pain in   her   abdomen   in   June   1996.     She,   therefore, consulted   a   local   doctor   but   she   did   not   get   any relief.   Therefore, she consulted Dr. Lakshmi Basu who,   on   examination,   advised   her   to   get   some medical   tests   done   such   as   X­ray,   PA   Chest, Ultrasound   of   upper   abdomen   Endoscopy,   Blood Tests etc. Respondent No.1, as advised, carried out these medical tests. On examination of the reports of respondent No.1, Dr. Basu opined that her Gall 3 Bladder had two calculi in its lumen and the same could   be   cured   only   by   operation.   Dr.   Basu accordingly   advised   respondent   No.1   to   undergo laparoscopic   surgery   from   any   good   Surgeon   and suggested the name of the appellant.

6. Respondent   No.1,   as   advised,   consulted   Dr. S.K.   Jhunjunwala­the   appellant   herein   who,   after her examination  and also her medical test reports, agreed with the advise of Dr. Basu and accordingly advised respondent No.1 for undergoing Surgery of her   Gall   Bladder.   The   appellant   also   advised respondent   No.1   to   get   herself   admitted   in respondent No.2’s Hospital for undergoing Surgery.

8. In   December   1997,   respondent   No.1   filed   a complaint   under   Section   10   of   the   Consumer Protection   Act,   1986   (for   short,   “the   Act”)   against the appellant (opposite party No.1) and respondent No.2   (opposite   party   No.2)   claiming   compensation for the loss, mental suffering and pain suffered by her   throughout   after   the   surgery   on   account   of negligence   of   the   appellant   in   performing   the surgery   of   her   Gall   Bladder   on   08.08.1996. Respondent   No.1,   in   substance,   complained   that firstly,   she   had   never   given   her   consent   for performing   general   Surgery   of   her   Gall   Bladder rather   she   had   given   consent   for   performing laparoscopy   Surgery   only   but   the   appellant performed general surgery of her Gall Bladder which 5 resulted in putting several stitches and scars on her body,     Secondly,   even   the   surgery   performed   was not   successful   inasmuch   as   respondent   No.1 thereafter   suffered   for   several   days   with   various ailments,   such   as   dysentery,   loss   of   appetite, reduction of weight, jaundice etc., Thirdly, in June 1997,   she   was,   therefore,     required   to   undergo another Surgery in Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi for removal of stones which had slipped in CBD.  It was alleged that all these ailments were incurred due to the negligence of the appellant, who did not perform the   surgery   properly   and   rather   performed   the surgery   carelessly   leaving   behind   for   respondent No.1   only   mental   agony,   pain,   harassment   and money loss and hence she filed a complaint to claim the   reasonable   amount   of   compensation   under various heads as mentioned above.

9.   The   appellant filed his reply  and  denied the allegations   made   by   respondent   No.1   in   her complaint. In substance, the appellant stated in his reply   that   he,   after   examining   respondent   No.1, advised her to go for surgery of Gall Bladder, which may   even   include   removal   of   Gall   Bladder.   It   was stated   that   consent   of   respondent   No.1   for performing   the   laparoscopic   cholecystectomy   was duly   obtained   before   performing   the   surgery.   The appellant   stated   that   after   starting   laparoscopic surgery,   he   noticed   swelling,   inflammation   and adhesion   on   her   Gall   Bladder   and,   therefore,   he came   out   of   the   Operation   Theater   and   disclosed these facts to respondent No.1's husband and told him that in such a situation it would not be possible to   perform   laparoscopic   surgery   and   only conventional   procedure of surgery is the option  to remove   the   malady.   The   husband   of   respondent 7 No.1   agreed   for   the   option   suggested   by   the appellant   and   the  appellant  accordingly  performed conventional   surgery.     Respondent   No.1   was discharged after spending few days in the Hospital for   post­operative   care.   The   appellant,   therefore, denied   any   kind   of   negligence   or   carelessness   or inefficiency on his part in performing the surgery on respondent   No.1   and   stated   that   all   kinds   of precautions to the best of his ability and capacity, which were necessary to perform the surgery were taken   by   him   and   by   the   team   of   doctors   that worked with him in all such operational cases.

10. Parties   adduced   affidavit   evidence   in   support of  their respective cases set up in their pleadings. The State Commission, by order dated 19.01.2004, dismissed   the   complaint   filed   by   respondent   No.1 finding   no   merit   therein.   Respondent   No.1   felt 8 aggrieved   and   filed   appeal   before   the   National Commission.

11. By impugned order, the National Commission allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to be   paid   by   the   appellant   to   respondent   No.1   on account of negligence on his part in performing the surgery   which   gives   rise   to   filing   of   the   present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the appellant­Dr.   S.K.   Jhunjhnwala(opposite   party No.1).

29.   The   State   Commission   did   not   accept   the aforementioned submission of respondent No.1 but this   submission   found   favour   to   the   National Commission   for   holding   the   appellant   guilty   of negligence in performance of his duty in performing the surgery.  We do not agree with the reasoning of the   National   Commission   on   this   issue   for   more than one reason mentioned below.

34. In our opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve this fact stated by the appellant in his evidence. It is,   in   our   opinion,   a   natural   conduct   and   the behavior of any prudent doctor, who is performing the   operation   to   apprise   the   attending   persons   of what he noticed in the patient and then go ahead accordingly to complete the operation.  21

36. In our opinion,  a clear case of grant of consent to   the   appellant   to   perform   the   substituted operation  of   Gall  Bladder  of respondent  No.1 was, therefore,   made   out   to   enable   the   appellant   to perform the conventional surgery, which he actually performed.

42. Had   it   been   so,   the   appellant   could   be   held liable   for   failure   on   his  part  to   remove   the  stones and allowed them to remain in the Gall Bladder for such a long time.   There was no medical evidence adduced by respondent No.1 to prove this fact.

43. In   our   opinion,   no   medical   evidence   of   any expert   was   adduced   by   respondent   No.1   to   prove any   specific   kind   of   negligence   on   the   part   of   the appellant   in   performing   the   surgery   (conventional 26 surgery) of Gall Bladder except raising the issue of “non­giving of express consent”.  This issue we have already   dealt   with   above   and   found   no   merit therein.   In   our   view,   respondent   No.1   was   under

45. In   our   considered   opinion,   respondent   No.   1 was not able to prove that the ailments which she suffered after she returned home from the Hospital on   08.08.1996   were   as   a   result   of   faulty   surgery performed by the appellant.

48. In   the   light   of   the   detailed   discussion   made above on the issues arising in the case including the issue of grant of consent, we are unable to accept the   aforesaid   submissions   of   learned   counsel   for respondent No.1.

50. In   the   light   of   what   we   have   held   above,   we cannot   concur   with   the   reasoning   and   the conclusion arrived at by the National Commission. As   a   consequence,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is accordingly   allowed.   The   impugned   order   is   set aside   and   that   of   the   order   passed   by   the   State Commission is restored.

October 01, 2018  31