The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that doctors cannot be deemed negligent if a medically accepted procedure fails, provided the procedure was in line with current medical standards.
Case Background
A complainant from Australia underwent dental treatment at Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital in India. The doctor recommended root canal treatment (RCT) and a dental cap. Despite multiple payments, the hospital did not issue a consolidated bill, causing inconvenience to the complainant’s parents. The complainant alleged improper treatment, necessitating further dental procedures in Australia, costing Rs. 6,760. Consequently, a complaint was filed in the District Forum seeking compensation for treatment expenses and litigation costs. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, but the State Commission of Rajasthan overturned this decision, leading the complainant to file a revision petition before the NCDRC.
Hospital’s Défense
The hospital acknowledged the dental treatment provided to the complainant, stating that the RCT was completed and a crown was applied. They issued a lump sum bill for Rs. 12,000. The complainant initially reported successful treatment but later sought a revised bill for Rs. 20,000, which the hospital refused. The hospital denied any deficiency in service and requested dismissal of the complaint.
NCDRC’s Observations
The NCDRC focused on whether there was a deficiency in the dental treatment and billing provided to the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiencies leading to additional expenses, while the hospital claimed they provided appropriate treatment and any billing issues were procedural, not negligent.
- Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi Vs. Dr. Triambak Bapu Godbole and Anr: Established that a doctor must possess reasonable skill and care, and a breach of these duties constitutes negligence.
- Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab: The Supreme Court noted that not all medical failures imply negligence, as even competent professionals may have unsuccessful outcomes if the procedure was medically accepted.
- Devarakonda Suryasesha Mani v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences: The Supreme Court ruled that without specific evidence of a lack of due medical attention, it is not possible to second-guess medical judgment.
Final Decision
The NCDRC found no substantial evidence that the doctor failed to provide reasonable care or that the treatment did not meet acceptable medical standards. The billing discrepancies were procedural, not indicative of negligence or unfair trade practices. Therefore, the Commission upheld the State Commission’s decision, dismissing the revision petition.
Case Title: Ruchika Sharma Vs. Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital & Anr
Case Number: R.P. No. 1837/2019