Medical negligence requires proof of breach of a competent practitioner's standard of care, not merely an unsuccessful treatment outcome.

Medical negligence is made out only when a doctor's conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and care; a mere choice between acceptable treatment options, an error of judgment, or an unsuccessful result does not itself establish liability. Applying that standard, the Court noted that recognised medical opinion and expert material supported the anterior approach for adrenalectomy, and it found no basis to treat the surgery, post-operative management, second surgery, or follow-up care as deficient. The appellants therefore failed to prove breach of the requisite standard of care under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of medical negligence or deficiency in service in the diagnosis, surgery, post-operative care and follow-up treatment of the deceased, so as to warrant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Analysis: The complaint was examined on the touchstone of settled principles governing medical negligence. A medical practitioner is expected to exercise a reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care, but is not required to guarantee success or to adopt the only possible course of treatment. Where recognized medical opinion supports the procedure adopted, a mere choice of one acceptable approach over another, or an error of judgment, does not by itself amount to negligence. The evidence, including the medical literature and expert opinion, supported the anterior approach for adrenalectomy and showed that the surgical team acted within an accepted medical standard. The Court also found no basis to hold the post-operative management or the second surgery negligent, and concluded that the appellants had not established breach of the requisite standard of care.

Conclusion: The respondents were not guilty of medical negligence or deficiency in service.

Ratio Decidendi: In medical negligence cases, liability arises only when the doctor's conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and care, and not merely because another treatment choice was possible or because the result was unsuccessful.

---