Supreme Court Awards Compensation in Medical Negligence Case of Child’s Vision Loss

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of a father seeking justice for his 13-year-old son, Master Irshad, who lost complete vision in his right eye due to an allegedly negligent cataract surgery. The judgment reinstates the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), which found the doctors and the hospital responsible for medical negligence and directed them to compensate the victim.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around an incident that occurred in November 2006, when Master Irshad suffered an injury to his right eye. Initially, he was taken to Disha Eye Hospital, where doctors diagnosed him with a traumatic cataract and recommended surgery. Due to financial constraints, his father, Najrul Sheikh (the appellant), opted for treatment at Megha Eye Centre, where Dr. Sumit Banerjee (Respondent No.1) performed the surgery on November 24, 2006.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-tamil-nadu-property-dispute-over-settlement-deeds-and-succession/

Following the surgery, the boy experienced pain, irritation, and blood clotting in the affected eye. Despite multiple visits to the doctor, his condition did not improve. Eventually, on April 19, 2007, he was referred to the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO), where he was diagnosed with retinal detachment, leading to permanent blindness in his right eye.

Legal Proceedings and Orders of Lower Courts

• District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC): On May 16, 2013, the DCDRC ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that Dr. Banerjee was negligent in providing pre-operative and post-operative care. The Commission ordered the doctor and the hospital to pay ₹9,00,000 in compensation, with an additional 10% interest if not paid within a month.
• State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC): On September 11, 2015, the SCDRC overturned the DCDRC’s ruling, accepting the findings of the West Bengal Medical Council, which exonerated the doctor. The Council instead found contributory negligence on the part of the father, arguing that he delayed seeking further treatment.
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The NCDRC, in its order dated June 9, 2016, upheld the SCDRC’s decision and dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor and placing the blame on the delay in seeking further treatment.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the decisions of all lower forums and found multiple errors in the reasoning adopted by the SCDRC and NCDRC. The Court highlighted the following points:

• The findings of the DCDRC were based on expert testimony provided by Dr. Anindya Gupta, who clearly established lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care.
• The SCDRC and NCDRC failed to consider this expert opinion and instead relied solely on the West Bengal Medical Council’s report, which did not adequately address the deficiencies in medical treatment.
• The treating doctor himself admitted that traumatic cataract surgeries in children are highly complicated, unpredictable, and prone to complications, yet he failed to take necessary precautions.
• The post-operative care was inadequate as there was no review within the first 72 hours of the surgery, which is a standard practice for such cases.
• The Medical Council’s conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the father was unsupported by any expert medical testimony.

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The appellate forums have mechanically relied upon the Medical Council report without any reference to the evidence of Dr. Gupta. While such reports can be relevant, they cannot be determinative, especially when they contradict clear expert testimony presented before a consumer forum.”

The Court further observed:

“The duty of care in cases of medical negligence does not end with surgery. The failure to ensure proper post-operative care amounts to medical negligence.”

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court reinstated the DCDRC’s order and directed the respondents to pay ₹9,00,000 in compensation to the appellant within one month.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces several key legal principles:

• Consumer Protection in Medical Cases: The ruling establishes that patients and their families have legal remedies for medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• Significance of Expert Evidence: The Court emphasized that expert medical opinions must be given due weight in negligence cases.
• Responsibility of Doctors in Pre- and Post-Operative Care: The ruling clarifies that medical professionals cannot escape liability simply because a procedure is inherently risky.
• Accountability in Medical Practice: The judgment highlights the need for strict compliance with medical protocols, particularly in surgeries involving children.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides much-needed relief to a father who fought for justice for his son for over 17 years. It serves as a reminder that medical professionals must uphold the highest standards of care and that patients have the right to seek accountability for negligent treatment. The judgment reinforces the role of consumer protection laws in ensuring fair treatment for victims of medical malpractice.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-settlement-in-tamil-nadu-property-dispute-between-family-members/

Petitioner Name: Najrul Sheikh.
Respondent Name: Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 22-02-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: najrul-sheikh-vs-dr.-sumit-banerjee-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-02-2024.pdf