The Supreme Court has set aside the charge of negligence and the fine imposed on the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, and one of its eye specialists in connection with a surgery that went wrong 28 years ago.

The apex court said doctors cannot be liable for negligence simply because of a failed surgery. The ruling pertains to a case related to an alleged botched surgery on Jaswinder Singh, then six years old, who was diagnosed with a congenital disorder in his left eye known as ptosis, or “drooping eyelid”.

The court said doctors cannot be saddled with liability for all surgeries that fail unless it is established that the doctor concerned did not exercise the necessary skill while performing their duties.

“The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that Dr Neeraj Sood or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed byDr Neeraj Sood was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties. Simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence...,” a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal said in a recent judgment.

The apex court passed the verdict while allowing the appeal filed by the PGIMER and the aggrieved doctor and dismissing the cross-appeal filed by the minor and his father seeking enhanced compensation for the allegedly botched surgery.

Jaswinder had undergone the surgery on June 26, 1996, to cure ptosis, but the procedure allegedly aggravatedhis condition.

According to the complainant, there was no other defect in the eyes of the child and both eyes had normal vision. The physical deformity diagnosed (ptosis) could have been cured by a minor operation which required lifting of the left eyelid a little to make it of the same size as the right eye, but the surgery was done in “a most negligent manner”, the complaint said. The condition of the eye deteriorated post-surgery and the patient suffered blurry and double vision, according tothe complaint.

The State Consumer Commission had on May 27, 2005, dismissed the complaint but on an appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, held Dr Sood and the PGIMER liable for payment of compensation of ₹3,00,000 and ₹50,000, respectively, as costs with 6 per cent interest from the date of the complaint.

The NCDRC said the doctor had been negligent as he had not provided proper treatment and was also careless as he had not performed arepeat surgery.

Aggrieved by the order, the two sides filed the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Justice Mithal said: “Deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of the fact that the surgery performed or the treatment given to the patient was not proper or inappropriate or that there wassome negligence.”