Najrul Seikh vs. Dr. Sumit Banerjee [February 22, 2024]
This Supreme Court case arose from a tragic incident in which Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy and son of Najrul Seikh (a Below Poverty Line cardholder), lost vision in his right eye following a cataract surgery performed by Dr. Sumit Banerjee at Megha Eye Centre. After the surgery, Irshad experienced persistent pain and irritation, with no improvement despite multiple follow-ups. Eventually, he was referred to a regional institute where retinal detachment was diagnosed, resulting in permanent vision loss.
Najrul Seikh filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRC), alleging medical negligence in both pre-operative and post-operative care. The DCDRC found in his favor, awarding ₹9,00,000 in compensation. However, the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (SCDRC and NCDRC) overturned this, relying heavily on a Medical Council report that attributed the outcome to delayed follow-up by the complainant, thereby absolving the doctor of negligence.
Key Legal Issues
Whether there was medical negligence in pre-operative and post-operative care.
Whether the Medical Council’s report should be determinative in consumer disputes.
Whether delay in follow-up by the complainant constituted contributory negligence sufficient to absolve the doctor.
Arguments
Appellant (Najrul Seikh): Asserted that the respondents failed to provide adequate post-operative care, directly causing retinal detachment and blindness. He highlighted expert testimony (Dr. Anindya Gupta) that established lapses in care and challenged the selective reliance on the Medical Council report by higher forums.
Respondents (Dr. Banerjee and Megha Eye Centre): Relied on the Medical Council’s findings, arguing that any adverse outcome was due to the complainant’s delay in seeking further medical attention, not negligence on their part.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, held that the duty of care in medical services extends beyond surgery to include comprehensive post-operative care. The Court found that the District Forum’s findings were based on credible evidence, including expert testimony, and that the appellate forums erred by relying solely on the Medical Council’s report without holistic evaluation of all evidence.
The Court clarified that a Medical Council report, while relevant, cannot override the consumer forum’s independent assessment, especially when there is credible expert evidence of negligence. The Court also rejected the argument of contributory negligence, noting that the complainant’s economic constraints and repeated efforts to seek care were established on record.
Judgment
The Supreme Court reinstated the District Forum’s order, holding Dr. Banerjee and Megha Eye Centre liable for medical negligence and restoring the ₹9,00,000 compensation award.
The Court emphasized that consumer forums must evaluate all evidence comprehensively and that medical professionals have an ongoing duty of care, including diligent post-operative management.
Significance
This judgment is a landmark in medical negligence law, reaffirming that:
The duty of care extends to post-operative management.
Consumer forums’ findings based on comprehensive evidence take precedence over administrative reports.
Economic status and practical constraints of patients must be considered in negligence cases.
Citation:
Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2877 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 22 February 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments