Negligence in coronary bypass surgery resulting in cerebral damage and post-operative care - No deficiency in services.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dismisses Medical Negligence Complaint Against Max Super Speciality Hospital Allegations of negligence during bypass surgery leading to cerebral damage dismissed; Expert opinions and hospital records support hospital's defense.

In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi has dismissed a complaint filed by Smt. Usha Gupta and others against M/s Max Super Speciality Hospital and its staff, alleging medical negligence during a coronary bypass surgery that resulted in severe cerebral damage to the patient, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. The complaint, which has been under scrutiny since 2013, was dismissed on September 19, 2025, by a bench comprising Mr. A.P. Sahi, President, and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.

The case revolved around the allegations that negligence during a coronary bypass surgery performed on September 1, 2011, led to the patient developing Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy, leaving him in a vegetative state until his death in January 2013. The complainants argued that there was a failure in maintaining proper surgical protocols and post-operative care, leading to cerebral damage.

In their detailed judgment, the NCDRC analyzed hospital records, expert opinions, and medical literature to determine the validity of the negligence claims. The Commission found that the complainants failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the hospital or the operating surgeon, Dr. I.S. Virdi. The Commission relied heavily on the expert opinion provided by the Delhi Medical Council, which had previously exonerated the hospital and the surgeon of any negligence.

The judgment also addressed allegations of harassment through excessive billing and misbehavior by hospital staff, finding them unsubstantiated. The Commission noted that the hospital had offered concessions and discounts, negating claims of harassment.

Furthermore, the Commission dismissed the applicability of the "res ipsa loquitur" principle, which suggests that the facts speak for themselves in cases of evident negligence. The Commission ruled that the evidence presented did not support the application of this principle.

The decision underscores the importance of credible expert opinions in medical negligence cases, emphasizing the need for empirical analysis and qualified expert testimony. The judgment serves as a reminder of the high threshold required to establish medical negligence and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

Bottom Line:

Medical Allegations of negligence during coronary bypass surgery resulting in cerebral damage and post-operative care - Expert opinions and hospital records analyzed to determine the presence of negligence - Complaint dismissed as complainants failed to establish negligence or deficiency in services.

Statutory provision(s): Consumer Protection Act, Indian Evidence Act - Section 45 (Opinions of experts)

Smt. Usha Gupta v. M/s Max Super Speciality Hospital, (NCDRC)(New Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782175