Abstract

NCDRC in a recent judgment observed that for the past one decade filing of consumer complaints against doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are on the rise and in many cases these being frivolous.

NCDRC imposed exemplary cost to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for better protection of his interests under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A case filed by the complainants against the opposite parties praying compensation of Rs.12500000/- along with cost of Rs. 2500000/- towards harassment and mental agony etc.

NCDRC observed that on the basis of forgoing discussion, I am of view that, this complaint filed by the complainant is a clear case to just harass the doctor who was a family doctor. It should be borne in mind that, if a doctor professes that he is a specialist, possessing some special skills to deal with a particular ailment or condition, he is expected to exercise a higher degree of care than a general practitioner, whose conduct is to be judged on a different parameter.

Meaning thereby, a specialists duty of care has to be equivalent or at par that of a similar specialist possessing the requisite skill in that particular branch of medicine.

Thus in simple words the conduct of a general practitioner is to be judged on the touchstone of the conduct of a general practitioner. Thus, a specialist has to exercise a higher degree of care than a generalist. The expectation of the patient from the specialist is better care and higher degree of treatment   as compared to other specialists, but it will be still greater degree of care expected by a super specialist. Thus, in the instant case I do not find OP-1 Dr. Chandru a general practitioner was negligent in his duty. [Para 18]

NCDRC concluded that thus in my view, there was neither deficiency nor negligence of OP-1 doctor. It was reasonable and accepted standard of practice from the general fractioned.