In Brief
A doctor performed gall bladder surgery on a patient, initially using laparoscopy but switching to open conventional surgery after discovering inflammation and adhesion. The patient sued, claiming the doctor performed surgery without valid consent and caused complications. The National Commission found the doctor negligent and awarded compensation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctor obtained valid consent under the consent form's clause authorizing substitute procedures, and through the patient's husband's express consent during the operation. The Court found no expert medical evidence proving the patient's post-surgical ailments resulted from faulty surgery, merely that ailments occurred. Medical negligence requires specific proof of substandard practice, not just bad outcomes.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.