SC Relief To A Surgeon Who Was Sued For Negligence For Performing Conventional Surgery Instead Of Laparoscopic Surgery To Remove Gall Bladder [Read Judgment]

“It was not an unauthorized act of the appellant and he could legally perform on the basis of original consent of respondent No.1 as also on the basis of the further consent given by the respondent No.1’s husband.”The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order against a surgeon that found him ‘negligent’ for. “It was not an unauthorized act of the appellant and he could legally perform on the basis of original consent of respondent No.1 as also on the basis of the further consent given by the respondent No.1’s husband.” The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order against a surgeon that found him ‘negligent’ for performing conventional surgery and removed gall bladder even though there was no express consent of the patient. It is, in our opinion, a natural conduct and the behavior of any prudent doctor, who is performing the operation to apprise the attending persons of what he noticed in the patient and then go ahead accordingly to complete the operation.” The commission had relied on apex court judgment in Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchand to hold that there was no consent to perform conventional surgery. The fact that the unauthorized additional surgery is beneficial to the patient, or that it would save considerable time and expense to the patient, or would relieve the patient from pain and suffering in future, are not grounds of defence in an action in tort for negligence or assault and battery.” But the bench quoted the ‘exception’ in the same judgment which reads: “The only exception to this rule is where the additional procedure though unauthorised, is necessary in order to save the life or preserve the health of the patient and it would be unreasonable to delay such unauthorised procedure until patient regains consciousness and takes a decision.” Setting aside the National Consumer Commission order, the bench said that it is a clear case of grant of consent to the surgeon to perform the substituted operation of gallbladder and that it was not an unauthorized act and he could legally perform on the basis of original consent as also on the basis of the further consent given by her husband.