Patient does not have authority to dictate terms of treatment: State consumer panel
Dismissing a complaint filed against a doctor for medical negligence, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission asserted that the patient does not have the authority to dictate the terms of treatment. It is well established in medical ethics and practice that the treating physician is guided by medical protocols, ethics and expectations and requirements of the patient, within the boundaries of accepted standards of care.
The State Commission said the patient had failed to produce any concrete and substantial evidence to substantiate the allegations of medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The State Commission has pronounced the decision on an appeal filed by Dr Deepak Kalia of Novena Clinic, Chandigarh.
Dr Kalia had challenged the order dated December 7, 2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Chandigarh vide which he was directed to refund Rs 46,000 with 9 per cent interest from the date of deposit till onwards to the complainant. He was also directed to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs 7,500 to the complainant as litigation cost.
The District Commission has passed the order on the complaint of a native of Punjab. He said he took treatment for UltraSonic Liposuction of Chin, Chest and Abdomen on June 16, 2019, from Novena Clinic, Chandigarh. He alleged that after surgery he found that his chest measurement was still the same and there was no change after operation and medical treatment provided to him .
He alleged that the clinic, through misrepresentations, grabbed huge money from him but committed medical negligence, which amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.
However, the doctor denied the charges and said the patient had visited two times only after his discharge from the clinic. The complainant recovered well but did not come for follow up. Everything was done diligently with due care and there was no negligence or deficiency. However, the District Commission after hearing the contesting parties in its order dated December 7, 2023, directed doctor to refund the amount and pay the compensation .
Not satisfied with the decision, the doctor filed the appeal before the State Commission Counsel and argued that there was no medical negligence on part of the appellant in treating the complainant, yet, the District Commission fell into a grave error in not considering the facts.
After hearing arguments, the State Commission said the patient had failed to produce any concrete and substantial evidence to substantiate the allegations of medical negligence or deficiency in service on part of the appellant. The mere assertion that liposuction was not effectively carried out or that the procedure did not yield the desired results does not, in itself, constitute proof of negligence . The law in this regard is clear that unsuccessful treatment or failure to achieve the expected outcome does not automatically equate to medical negligence.
It was held that mere assumptions or presumptions of negligence are insufficient to sustain claim.
