In a consumer court judgment in Raman Sangra Vs. Recover Hair Transplant hospital, Kakkar, the court has passed an order against the hospital in favor of the complainant to return the amount charged by the hospital for the deficiency in service along with compensation and litigation expenses, however the doctor who had carried out the hair transplantation surgery was absolved against the allegations.
However it made it clear that the as per terms and conditions, the plastic surgery or hair transplant are not payable by the insurance company.
In a judment by SC in Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra hospital, the court observed thus:
Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
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. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
It was held by the apex court that :
The National Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint of the appellants. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
If yous still want to file a case before consumer forum for the unsatisfied result, you may contact a local advocate practicing in consumer forum and enquire all other details like fees, and the procedures from the chosen advocate.