NDLI: Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Consumer Protection Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether the respondents have committed negligence in not providing proper post-operative medical care to the patient and, accordingly, whether the NCDRC has committed any illegality while dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complainant-appellant, husband (patient) was suffering from Chiari Malformations (Type II) with Hydrocephalous – Patient underwent neurosurgery after which he was shifted to a private room – However, same day around 11:00 p.m., patient suffered a heart attack and consequent to which he died after few days – Complainant alleged apropos lack of medical care from the time he was shifted to the private room – The NCDRC rejected the complaint of the complainant – Propriety:Held: It is not the case of the complainant that respondent no.2- doctor was negligent in performing the Neurosurgery – Thus, the entire case of the complainant was about lack of proper postoperative medical care – On this score, the allegation is that the patient should have been shifted to ICU instead of shifting him to a private room – The material available on the record demonstrates that as per the standard practice, all patients who show no signs of complications in the recovery room and have no post or pre-operative complications are sent to their rooms – The symptoms, which emerged after the deceased was discharged from the Operation Theatre, were not the symptoms, which typically precede a cardiac arrest – Since, the deceased did not have any known or identifiable heart ailments, it was impossible for the respondents to have prior knowledge that the patient may develop cardiac problem after few hours of the successful surgery – Also, materials placed before the Court show that patient was examined by doctors after his surgery and all required steps were taken – There is no evidence put forth by the complainant to establish that heart attack suffered by the patient had any connection with the operation in question or that it was on account of negligent postoperative care – Furthermore, affidavit of professor of neurosurgery in AIIMS and Senior Consultant in Neurology at respondent no.1- Hospital opined that the record did not show any abnormality at the operated site and the complications suffered by the patient were totally unrelated to the surgery conducted by respondent no. 2 – Therefore, the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part of Respondents in taking post-operative care and the findings in this regard recorded by the Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. [Paras 23,25,32]Principle/Doctrine – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability of: Held: In so far as the applicability of principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, in the fact and circumstances of the case, it is to bear in mind that the principles get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made – For applying the principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ is present to establish the allegation of negligence – Strong incriminating circumstantial or documentary evidence is required for application of the doctrine – In the instant case, there was no mistake in diagnosis or a negligent diagnosis by respondent no. 2 – In the absence of the patient having any history of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiac problem, it is difficult to foresee a possible cardiac problem only because the patient had suffered pain in the neck region. [Para 31]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 921
Petitioner	Mrs. Kalyani Rajan
Respondent	Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.
SCR	[2023] 15 S.C.R. 97
Judgement Date	2023-10-17
Case Number	10347

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Dr. (mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. Vs. Dr. M.a. Methusethupathi & Ors.

Mr. France B. Martins and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Mafaida Maria Teresa Rodrigues

Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs. Asha Jaiswal & Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Smt.santra

Dr. S. K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur & Anr

State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors Vs. All U.p. Consumer Protection Bar Association

M/s Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh

M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S.ambika Devi & Ors.

Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.

Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dr. (mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. Vs. Dr. M.a. Methusethupathi & Ors.

Mr. France B. Martins and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Mafaida Maria Teresa Rodrigues

Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs. Asha Jaiswal & Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Smt.santra

Dr. S. K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur & Anr

State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors Vs. All U.p. Consumer Protection Bar Association

M/s Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh

M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S.ambika Devi & Ors.

Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors.