| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Neeraj Sud and Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. |
| Introduction | The case states about an allegation of medical negligence following a ptosis surgery that led to deteriorated vision in a minor. The complainants, the father and son, appealed for compensation for the alleged negligence in treatment. |
| Factual Background | The complainant, a minor, underwent ptosis surgery by Dr. Neeraj Sud at PGI. Post-surgery, the eye condition worsened, leading the complainants to claim medical negligence. Initially dismissed by the State Commission, the case was partly upheld by NCDRC with a compensation order. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law | Bolam Test for Medical Negligence, as upheld in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, which requires proving duty of care, breach of duty, and consequential harm to establish medical negligence. |
| Analysis | The Supreme Court analyzed that medical professionals are not automatically negligent if treatment does not yield favorable results. A lack of improvement alone is insufficient to prove negligence. Additionally, no expert evidence was provided to demonstrate a lapse in medical standards by Dr. Sud. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC judgment, upholding the State Commission’s view that no negligence was proven. The complainants’ claim for compensation was dismissed, reaffirming that Dr. Sud exercised due care and skill in treatment. |
| Current Scenario | The case sets a precedent in medical negligence, emphasizing that unsatisfactory medical outcomes alone do not constitute negligence unless a lack of reasonable care or skill is proven. |
CASE SUMMARY – In Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr., the case involved an alleged medical negligence claim against Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI after a surgery for ptosis on the complainant’s minor son led to worsening of the eye condition. Initially, the State Commission dismissed the claim, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed it, awarding compensation due to perceived negligence. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the NCDRC’s order, holding that no actionable negligence was proven, as the doctor had exercised reasonable care and possessed the requisite skills.
“A doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with the acceptable norms of practice”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – ENSURING PRISONERS’ DIGNITY AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE
