In Brief
A surgeon with FRCS qualifications performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a patient for gall bladder stones. During surgery, he discovered inflammation and adhesion, making laparoscopy unsafe. He informed the patient's husband and obtained fresh consent before performing conventional open surgery. The patient later sued for medical negligence, claiming she had not consented to open surgery. The District and State Forums dismissed the complaint, but the National Commission reversed and awarded Rs. 2 lakhs compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the surgeon's appeal, holding that clause 4 of the consent form authorized substitute procedures; the surgeon's conduct was prudent and proper; the patient failed to prove negligence through expert medical evidence; and mere post-operative complications without proof of faulty surgical performance do not establish negligence. The Court restored the State Commission's dismissal."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.