DR. S. K. JHUNJHUNWALA versus MRS. DHANWANTI KAUR & ANR.

DR. S. K. JHUNJHUNWALA versus MRS. DHANWANTI KAUR & ANR.

Respondent No.1 failed to prove any specific kind of negligence by the appellant in performing gall bladder surgery or thereafter, or that any subsequent ailments were caused by improper performance of surgery. Consent for the conventional surgery was validly obtained via clause 4 of the consent form and direct communication with respondent No.1's husband. There was no requirement for another consent form. The National Commission’s finding was thus unsustainable; order of the State Commission is restored.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. S. K. Jhunjhunwala; Respondent No.1: Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur; Respondent No.2: Life Line Diagnostic Center and Nursing Home
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; order of State Commission restored.
Legal Topics
Consent in Surgery, Compensation for Medical Negligence, Proof of Negligence
Consumer Protection Medical Negligence Consent in Surgery Compensation for Medical Negligence Proof of Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. S. K. Jhunjhunwala

Appellant

Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur

Respondent No.1

Life Line Diagnostic Center and Nursing Home

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in performing surgery on respondent No.1's gall bladder
  2. 2 Whether proper consent was obtained for the conventional surgery
  3. 3 Whether respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation for alleged medical negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No.1 failed to prove any specific kind of negligence by the appellant in performing gall bladder surgery or thereafter, or that any subsequent ailments were caused by improper performance of surgery. Consent for the conventional surgery was validly obtained via clause 4 of the consent form and direct communication with respondent No.1's husband. There was no requirement for another consent form. The National Commission’s finding was thus unsustainable; order of the State Commission is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; order of State Commission restored.

Orders

  • The impugned order awarding Rs.2 lakhs compensation by National Commission is set aside.
  • Order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint of respondent No.1, is restored.