Kanta vs Tagore Heart Care & Res.Cen.P.Ltd.& Anr

The Supreme Court held that the medical negligence alleged by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically Section 2(1)(g), was substantiated as the treating physician, Dr. Chawla, failed to provide adequate care during the angiography procedure, leading to severe complications including aortic dissection. The Court emphasized that consent must be informed and that the standard of care expected from medical professionals must be upheld. The Court reinstated the compensation awarded by the State Commission, overturning the National Commission's decision.