NAJRUL SEIKH versus DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.

NAJRUL SEIKH versus DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.

The Supreme Court affirmed the DCDRC finding of deficiency in medical services because the DCDRC based its conclusion on uncontroverted expert evidence establishing lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care and a nexus to retinal detachment; the SCDRC and NCDRC erred by mechanically relying solely on the Medical Council report without examining the totality of evidence, and therefore their orders were set aside and the DCDRC order reinstated.

Parties
Appellant: Najrul Seikh; Respondent: Dr. Sumit Banerjee; Respondent: Megha Eye Centre
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Order Dated 09.06.2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of the SCDRC and the NCDRC set aside; order of the DCDRC restored.
Legal Topics
Deficiency in Service, Medical Negligence, Compensation, Exoneration of Charges of Misconduct/negligence, Medical Council Report, Duty of Care, Pre Operative Standards, Post Operative Standards, Cataract Surgery, Loss of Vision
Consumer Protection Medical Negligence Deficiency in Service Compensation Exoneration of Charges of Misconduct/negligence Medical Council Report Duty of Care Pre Operative Standards +3 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Najrul Seikh

Appellant

Dr. Sumit Banerjee

Respondent

Megha Eye Centre

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Order Dated 09.06.2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents of charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery
  2. 2 Whether a Medical Council report is determinative of negligence before a consumer forum when it contradicts evidentiary findings
  3. 3 Whether duty of care in medical services ends with surgery or continues into post-operative care

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the DCDRC finding of deficiency in medical services because the DCDRC based its conclusion on uncontroverted expert evidence establishing lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care and a nexus to retinal detachment; the SCDRC and NCDRC erred by mechanically relying solely on the Medical Council report without examining the totality of evidence, and therefore their orders were set aside and the DCDRC order reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of the SCDRC and the NCDRC set aside; order of the DCDRC restored.

Orders

  • Orders of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside
  • Respondents directed to comply with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 16.05.2013 within one month from the date of the Supreme Court order