Petitioner/complainant filed a complaint against the respondent claiming damages on the ground of medical negligence on the part of the respondent in giving treatment to the patient.  District Forum dismissed the complaint.  State Commission, in its order, has recorded that the petitioner had failed to examine any expert witness to prove that the respondent was guilty of negligence while giving treatment to the patient.  Petitioner had examined two doctors, who had treated the patient in Gandhi Memorial Hospital and Jawahal Lal Nehru Memorial Hospital.  State Commission, in its order, has recorded that the evidence of these two doctors did not lead to positive conclusion that the diagnosis by them was correct, as they did not depend upon the pathological tests.  Patient died later on.  No postmortem had been done.  For coming to the conclusion that there was no medical negligence on the part of the respondent, State Commission has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – (2005)6 SCC 1, in which it has been observed thus :

“A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial,  much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on.  The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence.  This is all what the person approaching the professional can expect.  Judged by this standard a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.  The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.  It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.”

(Emphasis supplied)

          It cannot be said that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification or that he did not exercise reasonable competence while handling the case.  It can be a matter of difference of opinion between the respondent and the other two doctors.

          We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, rather we agree with the same.  Dismissed.