In a recent decision, the Supreme Court said that a doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence directly just because a patient has not responded favorably to the operation or treatment given by a doctor or the operation has failed. The court said that a doctor following the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the performance of his duties would not be liable for the patient’s post-operative complications.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held that merely for the reason that the patient has not responded favorably to the operation or treatment administered by a doctor or the operation has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence directly by applying the doctrine on Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill he possessed in the performance of his duties.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that as long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the performance of his duties, no liability for medical negligence can be imposed on him.
“Deterioration of the patient’s condition after the operation is not necessarily a sign or indication of the fact that the operation performed or the treatment given to the patient was improper or inappropriate or that there was any negligence in the administration of the same. operation or such treatment is not necessary that the patient’s condition should in any case improve and the operation be successful to the patient’s satisfaction,” the judgment said.
The court added that it is quite possible that in some rare cases complications of such a nature may occur, but that this does not in itself show any negligent negligence on the part of the medical expert.
“It is well established that medical negligence involves three elements: (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty; and (iii) consequential damages. However, a simple lack of care, an error in judgment, or an accident is not sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the physician as long as the physician follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the performance of his duties He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because there was a better alternative treatment or course of treatment or that there were more skilled physicians who could have given better treatment,” the verdict said.
The Supreme Court said that when reasonable care, expected of the doctor, is extended or given to the patient unless the contrary is proved, it would not be a case of negligent negligence.
“In a celebrated and much-quoted decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division) it was observed that a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with the acceptable standards of practice in the absence of evidence of a medical body of competent persons in the field which considers that the accepted principles/procedure have not been followed. The test so laid down popularly came to be known as Bolam’s test and is approved by the Supreme Court…” the judgment said.
The case came up when a father filed a consumer complaint against PGI Chandigarh and a doctor, alleging that his minor son’s vision deteriorated after the surgery.
The doctor and the hospital had moved the Supreme Court after the NCDRC accepted the claim of the appellant based on the medical reports which say that after the operation the condition of PTOSIS of his child worsened.
Setting aside the finding of the NCDRC on an appeal filed by the doctor and the hospital, the Supreme Court observed that the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence unless the appellant proves that the doctor failed to exercise the skills possessed by him in the performance of his duties .
