Chandigarh – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has overturned a District Consumer Court order, ruling in favor of Dr. Kalia, a Chandigarh-based plastic surgeon, in a medical negligence case related to a liposuction procedure.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a patient who underwent liposuction at Novena Clinic, Chandigarh, on June 16, 2019. The patient alleged that the surgery did not produce satisfactory results and that Dr. Kalia had failed to provide the necessary medical records, thereby constituting medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Following the complaint, the District Consumer Court had directed Dr. Kalia to refund ₹46,000 to the patient, along with ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹7,500 as litigation costs. Challenging this ruling, Dr. Kalia filed an appeal before the SCDRC.
State Commission’s Ruling
The State Commission, led by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), set aside the District Court’s decision, ruling that the complainant failed to provide substantial evidence of medical negligence.
- The Commission emphasized that an unsuccessful treatment does not automatically imply negligence, unless there is clear proof of deviation from medical standards.
- Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Commission reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, which was not met satisfactorily.
- The court noted that Dr. Kalia adhered to medical protocols and was a qualified professional. Additionally, the complainant failed to present crucial evidence, such as before-and-after photographs, weakening the case.
Final Verdict
The State Commission ruled in favor of Dr. Kalia, stating that there was no illegality or deficiency in service on his part, and dismissed the allegations of medical negligence. The decision reaffirms that an unsatisfactory outcome does not necessarily indicate malpractice, unless supported by substantial evidence.
