NAJRUL SEIKH vs. DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.
  • Post author:
  • Post category:Case Analysis
  • Post comments:0 Comments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case involves the claim of medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A 13-year-old boy lost vision in his right eye following cataract surgery by the respondents. The District Consumer Forum found the respondents liable for deficiency in medical service and ordered compensation. However, the State and National Commissions overturned the decision, exonerating the doctors, citing contributory negligence by the complainant. The Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s findings, emphasizing that duty of care extends beyond surgery, and that reliance solely on the Medical Council report without totality of evidence was improper.

Keywords: Medical negligence, Duty of care, Consumer Protection Act, Cataract surgery, Loss of vision.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 2877 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date:
22 February 2024.

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1065.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12.
  • Medical ethics and standards.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
Decisions of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:
Consumer Protection Law, Medical Negligence Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose when Master Irshad, a minor, suffered complete loss of vision in his right eye after a cataract surgery performed by the respondents. Initially, the District Forum held the respondents liable for negligence and granted compensation. The State and National Consumer Forums reversed the decision, exonerating the respondents and attributing delay in follow-up care to the complainant. The Supreme Court reinstated the District Forum’s findings, focusing on post-operative care lapses and duty of care.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  • On 14 November 2006, Master Irshad suffered an eye injury and was diagnosed with traumatic cataract.
  • The father, unable to afford private care, approached Dr. Sumit Banerjee (Respondent No. 1).
  • Surgery was performed on 24 November 2006, after which Irshad experienced irritation and pain.
  • Multiple visits yielded no improvement, and Irshad was referred to the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO) on 19 April 2007, where retinal detachment was diagnosed.
  • The District Forum awarded ₹9,00,000 compensation, citing negligence in pre-operative and post-operative care.
  • The State and National Commissions relied on the Medical Council report to dismiss the claim, citing contributory negligence due to delayed follow-up by the complainant.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Was there negligence in pre-operative and post-operative care?
  2. Can reliance on the Medical Council report be determinative in consumer disputes?
  3. Does delay in follow-up care constitute contributory negligence?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The respondents failed to provide standard post-operative care, causing retinal detachment.
  • Expert testimony of Dr. Gupta established negligence in care and treatment.
  • The Medical Council report disregarded evidence and was selectively considered by the State and National Commissions.
  • The complainant, being a Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholder, had limited access to immediate alternative medical help.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The surgery was performed to acceptable standards, and complications like retinal detachment are common in traumatic cataract cases.
  • The delay in visiting RIO constituted contributory negligence by the complainant.
  • The Medical Council cleared the respondents of any professional misconduct or negligence.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Relates to consumer complaints for deficiency in service.
  2. Medical Standards and Ethics: Obligations of doctors to ensure reasonable care pre- and post-treatment.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that duty of care in medical services extends to post-operative care. The District Forum’s findings of negligence were based on credible evidence, including expert testimony, and the appellate forums erred in ignoring these.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Medical Council report cannot be determinative in consumer disputes, particularly when it conflicts with forum evidence.

c. Guidelines

  • Appellate forums must consider all evidence holistically.
  • Medical professionals must provide adequate post-operative care to mitigate complications.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

  • V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513: On standards for proving medical negligence.
  • Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1: On duty of care and medical negligence.

b. Important Statutes Referred

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • Medical ethics regulations.

Leave a Reply