Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the aside observations made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against top cardiologist and Padma Shri Awardee Dr Upendra Kaul.

Dr Kaul is alleged for a patient who had died after an angioplasty procedure conducted in AIIMS following a cardiac arrest.

In the said matter, the division bench Justices AS Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an appeal challenging NCDRC decision which upheld the state commission’s finding that while the appellant doctor could not be held guilty, the hospital was culpable of administrative negligence since the bypass machine was not available readily.

“NCDRC upheld the judgment of the state commission which would in effect mean that the finding as against hospital alone was upheld and allegation against doctor has not been accepted by NCDRC. But, the Observation by NCDRC to refer PTCA report to contradict the version of the appellant doctor would give an impression as if certain adverse observations have been made against the doctor.”

“It is evident that except for allegations made in the complaint, the respondent has not given evidence of any independent doctor that the manner and procedure as followed was not the appropriate procedure.”

The Court observe that, the ventilator and PCPS being put to use.

To this,NCDRC said -“though Dr Kaul had stated that ventilator system was immediately connected when angioplasty conducted and PCPS(bypass machine) was connected within 30 minutes, the NCDRC observed that such a statement is in fact contradicted by PTCA report.”

However, the division bench of the Suoreme Court agreed that NCDRC committed an error in confusing the ventilator system with the bypass machine. The ventilator was connected immediately as per the procedure.

the observation made by NCDRC that the ventilator was connected belatedly is not justified. Therefore, the finding that there was a delay that led to negligence would not hold true. The adverse observations against the appellant doctor and hospital are set aside. Having taken note that the state commission had directed payment of 2 lakhs and since the said amount has already been paid, the matter is disposed of.”

 Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for appellant submitted that there was a mishap and the patient died.

It happens in 1-2% of cases.

He submitted that in the present case, the National and District forum had held the doctor negligent.

On the Contrary, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appering for Dr. Kaul, mentioned the exceptional contributions of the distinguished cardiologist, who has conducted over 11,000 successful angioplasties.

He emphasized that NCDRC confused the bypass machine with the ventilator. In this specific case, a ventilator had been promptly deployed and the pacemaker was swiftly installed in accordance with the established Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cardiac arrest.

The heart of the matter hinged on the claim that the bypass machine was not deployed within a 4-minute window, which formed the basis for the NCDRC's negligence finding. Nonetheless, Adv. Bhushan contended that deploying the machine within the stipulated time frame was unrealistic and ran counter to established medical protocols..

He cited Jacob Matthews's case which held that “The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.”

At this stage, Justice Mishra intervened and pointed out” But there's no specific finding as to medical negligence by the doctor in NCDRC order”?

Adv Bhushan responded that “there are observations in NCDRC order to that effect”.

The complaint revolved around an angiography procedure performed by the defendant physician, which the plaintiff alleged lacked appropriate medical attention, resulting in a fatality. Following a comprehensive evaluation, the state commission determined that although the defendant physician couldn't be found responsible, the hospital was at fault for administrative negligence due to the unavailability of the PCPS machine when needed. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) affirmed the state commission's decision.

Case title: Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur(Dead) Thr Lrs.