In a decade-old case, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of a Mumbai surgeon and reversed a decision of a suburban district commission regarding medical negligence. The district commission at Bandra East improperly did not consider the report from the Department of Urology, Grant Medical College, J.J. Group of Hospitals, Surgery, and casually overlooked the evidence of expert doctors, which found no negligence by the doctor who had performed the surgery, said the State Commission order.

The State Commission set aside a Sep 22, 2020, order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, and dismissed a complaint filed by the widow of a patient.

In 2014, a woman had filed a complaint against the doctor who performed a fistula surgery on her husband on Dec 31, 2013, who had ‘chronic kidney disease', and alleged pre-operation negligence caused gangrene. The patient died on Feb 19, 2014. The district commission overlooked the experts' report "on an incorrect ground that they belonged to the same profession," said the State Commission's judgment, passed by its president, Justice S P Tavade, and member Poonam Maharshi, in a June order, a certified copy of which the doctor received on Sep 30.

"Due weightage ought to be given to the report of the expert committee," as well as other medical experts, said the State Commission, holding that a widow of the patient failed to make out a case of negligence against Dr Shrikant Badwe, who had performed a fistula surgery on her husband in Dec 2013. The State Commission also directed that the Rs 7 lakh amount deposited by the surgeon as 50% of the total compensation he had been directed by the subordinate commission to pay, be returned to him with interest after the appeal period is over.

Rui Rodrigues, counsel for Dr Badwe, argued that an expert panel headed by Dr M A K Siddiqui, established at the request of the police dept, had concluded that there was "no lapse in due care and application of skill" and gave the doctor a clean chit. The widow, represented by advocate V Gaikwad, had complained that her diabetic husband developed gangrene due to pre-operative negligence, but the State Commission said, "except bare words of the complainant, there is no evidence to prove negligence". The State Commission said the doctor cannot be held responsible for "gangrene suffered" by the patient.

Rodrigues cited a series of Supreme Court rulings, which the Commission referenced. In one, the apex court had in 2019 said, "A fundamental aspect, which has to be kept in mind, is that a doctor cannot be said to be negligent if he is acting in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular act, merely because there is a body of such opinion that takes a contrary view. The test of negligence cannot be the test of the man on top of a Clapham omnibus."

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-surgeon-wins-decade-long-medical-negligence-battle/articleshow/113992073.cms