'Unsuccessful' liposuction plaint: Patient doesn't have authority to dictate terms of treatment to doctor: Consumer panel
"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 the expectations and requirements of the patient, within the boundaries of accepted standards of care." While observing this, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed a complaint filed against a doctor for medical negligence. The state commission said that 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 in 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 interest at the rate of nine per cent from the date of deposit 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 the cost of litigation.
The district commission has passed the order on the complaint of a Punjab resident. He said that he took treatment for ultrasonic liposuction of chin, chest and abdomen on June 16, 2019, from Novena Clinic in 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, took a huge amount of 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 a follow-up. Everything was done diligently, prudently with due care and caution and there is no negligence or deficiency in service, the doctor said. However, the district commission after hearing the contesting parties, in its order dated December 7, 2023, directed the doctor to refund the amount and pay compensation.
Not satisfied with the decision, the doctor filed an appeal before the state commission. The counsel for the appellant argued that there was no medical negligence on the part of the appellant in treating the complainant, yet the district commission fell into a grave error in not considering the fact and partly allowed the consumer complaint.
After hearing the 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 the 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 a claim. The complainant has failed to provide any convincing and concrete evidence linking the appellant actions to any alleged failure or adverse outcome of the treatment. In view of this, the order passed by the district commission, partly allowing the consumer complaint, is set aside, it stated.
