No medical negligence, yet liable to pay – equity or sympathy?

In a recent judgment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) examined the critical role of expert evidence in medical negligence cases. In a surprising twist, although it found the doctor was not negligent, it went ahead and directed that compensation be paid to the patient.

The litigation stems from a cataract surgery performed on May 20, 2010. Over three years later, in August 2013, the patient filed a consumer complaint alleging negligence. The District Commission dismissed the complaint due to the delay and a complete lack of supporting expert medical opinion.

On appeal, the Gujarat State Consumer Commission reversed the dismissal and awarded Rs. 40,000 in lumpsum compensation plus Rs. 5,000 for mental stress on “sympathetic considerations,” despite recording no confirmed findings of medical negligence. To safeguard his professional reputation, the doctor filed a Revision Petition before the NCDRC.

The NCDRC held that the State Commission failed to establish any convincing finding of carelessness per se. Reaffirming core medico-legal principles, the National Commission ruled that medical negligence cannot be presumed on mere sympathetic grounds in the absence of expert testimony. 

However, in a peculiar pragmatic turn, the NCDRC ordered that the Rs. 40,000 compensation awarded by the State Commission be released/paid to the patient, citing the “petty amount” involved and the need to close prolonged litigation.

After overruling the lower court’s judgment, the National Commission also could not avoid awarding compensation. The lower court had granted compensation on “sympathetic considerations”, whereas the higher court granted it because it was a “petty amount”. The moot question is whether this was an act of equity or of sympathy.