Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Medical Negligence - Expert Evidence - Requirement of - Held: Expert evidence is not required in all medical negligence cases - Expert evidence is necessary when it comes to the conclusion that the case is complicated or such that it cannot be resolved without the assistance of expert opinion - Each case has to be judged on its own facts - Negligence.

s. 2(1)(g) - Medical Negligence/Deficiency in service - Patient suffering intermittent fever with chills admitted to the hospital - Condition worsened critically and was shifted to another hospital, where the patient was declared dead - Complaint by husband before District Forum alleging deficiency in service - Award of two lakhs compensation - Set aside by State Commission as also National Commission holding that there was no expert evidence to prove negligence - On appeal, held: It was a case of wrong treatment - Test conducted by another hospital for malaria found positive - Test for typhoid found negative - Patient treated for typhoid and not malaria by the hospital where the patient was admitted when the complaint was of intermittent fever with chills - As a result, the condition of the patient deteriorated and became very critical and was removed to another hospital where she could not be revived - She had no pulse, no BP and was in an unconscious state with pupils dilated and had to be put on a ventilator - Thus, expert evidence was not necessary to prove medical negligence.

Negligence:
Medical negligence - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Applicability of - In medical negligence cases - Held: Doctrine is applicable where negligence is evident - Complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself - Respondent has to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence - Doctrines - Torts.

Medical Negligence - Requirement of expert evidence in medical negligence cases - Directions in D'souza's case 'to have expert evidence in all cases of medical negligence' - Held: Directions rendered in D'souza's case ignoring the provisions of the governing statute and earlier larger Bench decision on the point - Thus, not a binding precedent in cases of medical negligence before consumer forums - Precedent.

Medical negligence - Boilm test - Held: Lays down the standards for judging cases of medical negligence.

Evidence Act, 1872: ss. 61, 64, 74 and 75 - Complaint before consumer forum alleging medical negligence - Opposite party alleging that hospital records proved without following the provisions of the Evidence Act - Held: Provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable - Complaints before consumer forum are to be tried summarily.

Judgment/Order: 'Per incuriam' - When judgment rendered 'per incuriam' - Held: When a judgment is passed ignoring the provisions of the governing statute and earlier larger Bench decision on the point, it is rendered 'per incuriam'.

The appellant's wife was suffering from intermittent fever with chills and was admitted in the respondent no. 1 hospital. She underwent certain tests but the tests did not reveal malaria. The patient did not respond to the medicines administered to her and her condition deteriorated day by day. She was finally shifted to Y hospital in a very precarious condition and was virtually clinically dead. The Y hospital issued a death certificate which disclosed that the patient died due to cardio-respiratory arrest and malaria. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent no. 1 hospital before the District Forum alleging negligence in treating his wife. The doctor R of the respondent no. 1 hospital deposed that the appellant's wife was not treated for malaria. The District Forum held that the patient was suffering from malaria but was treated for typhoid and as such was subjected to the wrong treatment, and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The respondent no. 1 filed an appeal. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal holding that there was no expert opinion to substantiate the allegation of negligence. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the order of the State Consumer Forum. Hence the present appeal.