SUJOG KUMAR NAYAK Vs. BANDITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who is a doctor. On 24/6/2022, he had moved the petition to submit, his client performed operation on private opposite party, who thereafter complained of medical negligence and the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), by impugned award dtd. 9/11/2021, found in her favour. By order made that day Court had posed queries to Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of said private opposite party. Paragraph 3 in said order, containing the queries, is reproduced below. 3. Court requires satisfaction that medical negligence is covered by entry (v) under clause (b) of sec. 22A in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Furthermore, cursory glance at impugned award does not reflect evidence was laid before the PLA that corrective procedure was performed, for finding of mistake amounting to medical negligence.'

(2.) Mr. Dash relies on following judgments of the Supreme Court.

(3.) Relying on above authorities Mr. Dash submits, the PLA did not have any tangible medical evidence to find negligence against his client. On the contrary, in paragraph 8 of impugned award, finding was that problems of private opposite party were not the outcome of negligence or carelessness of the doctor but due to some unknown, unintentional and unwilling but curable mistakes during the operation.