JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY & NEGLIGENCE OF SERVICE under Section 52, 80, 81, 83, 88, 90, 91, 92 304-A, 337 & 338 IPC provisions & Legal Remedies available for Compensatory Action
Medical malpractice is the negligence in the profession of health management where the patient is given low standard treatment than the expected one, may be because of the act of omission or mere negligence on part of the medical representative. The entire minor to major complexities may be hooked under the medical malpractice. It involves harm to the patient by the doctor who declines executing their duty accurately. Such hazardous medical malpractice alters extensively with the aspect of medicine. It implicates chronic agitation for the patient’s safety. In such cases the medical representative is legally responsible for the harm or injuries caused to the patient. Lately with the flourishing perception in patient’s rights, the redressal claims for injury by medical negligence are being noticeable. Malpractice claims prevails for such medical negligence cases causing injury to the patient. Subsequent to the execution of Consumer Protection Act, plenty of the doctors were sued for the purpose of medical negligence by the patients. But the medical representative is not directly liable to the patient instead he/she is legally responsible for such act of medical malpractice. Section 304A of Indian penal code, 1860 illustrates the punishment for causing death by negligence other than culpable homicide.
Indian society is experiencing
a growing awareness regarding patient's rights. This trend is clearly discernible
from the recent spurt in litigation concerning medical professional or
establishment liability, claiming redressal for the suffering caused due to
medical negligence, vitiated consent, and breach of confidentiality arising out
of the doctor-patient relationship. The patient centered initiative of rights
protection is required to be appreciated in the economic context of the rapid
decline of Stat spending and massive private investment in the sphere of the
health care system and the Indian Supreme Court's painstaking efforts to
constitutionalize a right to health as a fundamental right. As of now, the
adjudicating process with regard to medical professional liability, be it in a
consumer forum or a regular civil or criminal court, considers common law
principles relating to negligence, vitiated consent, and breach of
confidentiality. However, it is equally essential to note that the protection
of patient's right shall not be at the cost of professional integrity and
autonomy. There is definitely a need for striking a delicate balance.
Otherwise, the consequences would be inexplicable. In the context of obtaining
processes, there is a deserving need for a two-pronged approach. On one hand,
the desirable direction points towards identification of minimum reasonable
standards in light of the social, economical, and cultural context that would
facilitate the adjudicators to decide issues of professional liability on an
objective basis. On the other hand, such identification enables the medical
professionals to internalize such standards in their day-to-day discharge of
professional duties, which would hopefully prevent to a large extent the
scenario of protection of patient's rights in a litigative atmosphere. In the
long run, the present adversarial placement of doctor and the patient would
undergo a transformation to the advantage of the patient, doctor, and society
at large. “Gross Lack of competency or gross inattention, or wanton
indifference to the patient’s safety, which may arise from gross ignorance of
the science of medicine and surgery or through gross negligence, either in the
application and selection of remedies, lack of proper skill in the use of instruments
and failure to give proper attention to the patient.” (Hampton v
State; State v Lester)
When
Does The Liability Arise In Case Of Medical Negligence?
The liability of a doctor
arises not when the patient suffers injury but when the injury results due to the
conduct of the doctor, which was below reasonable care. Hence once there exist
a duty which has to be established by the patient, then the next step is to
prove breach of such duty and the causation. Normally the liability arises only
when the plaintiff is able to discharge the burden on him of proving negligence.
However, in some cases the principle of “res ipsa loquitor” which means
the thing speaks for it might come into action. Mostly the doctor is liable
only for his own acts. However in some cases a doctor can also be made
vicariously liable for the acts of another. The example of such a situation is when
a junior doctor assisting the senior doctor commits a mistake it becomes the
duty of the senior to have supervised him hence vicariously liable.
Proof
of Medical Negligence
It has been held in
different judgments by the National Commission and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that a charge of professional negligence against a
doctor stood on a different footing from a charge of
negligence against a driver of a vehicle.The burden of proof correspondingly
greater on the person who alleges negligence
against a doctor. It is known fact that things can go wrong even wit the best
doctor. And the guilt or the negligence should be established beyond all reasonable
doubts that his skill fell below reasonable care that he ought to
take during the treatment/ surgery.
Steps/
Procedure to File Complaint Pertaining To Medical Negligence
Medicine is a noble
profession and practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill
and knowledge and must exercise reasonable degree of care. Neither the very
highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of
the particular circumstances of each case, is that the law requires.
1. Damage to organ due to
negligence.
2. Wrong treatment due to
wrong diagnosis.
3. Money receipt or
prescription or discharge summary or test reports when not provided.
4. When treatment not chosen
as accepted and established in medical norms /as per medical research/available
medical literature.
5. Theory of res
ipsa loquitur [a thing speaks of itself] – in case any instrument left
in the body, a wrong part removed, allopathic treatment given by a homeopathic
doctor etc.
6. Govt Hospital liable if
contribution from the employee’s salary deducted OR Payment made by insurance
company.
7. Negligent if three steps
necessary are not observed by the medical practitioners. First – To decide
whether he has to take up the case or not: Third- Whether the treatment given
as per the diagnosis made.
8. Hospital can also be
negligent if ‘it is a case of non- availability of oxygen cylinder either because
of the hospital having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or because of
the gas cylinder being found empty. (As according to the National Consumer
Helpline
What is
a complaint?
A complaint is an allegation
in writing made by a Complainant someone who has suffered loss or damage as a
result of any deficiency of service.
Section 52,
80, 81, 83, 88, 90, 91, 92 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC provisions
Causing death by negligence —whoever
causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting
to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
What is
the duty owed?
The duty owed by a doctor
towards his patient, in the words of the Supreme Court is to “bring to his task
a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge” and to exercise “a reasonable
degree of care” (Laxman vs. Trimback) The doctor, in other
words, does not have to adhere to the highest or sink to the lowest degree of
care and competence in the light of the circumstance. A doctor, therefore, does
not have to ensure that every patient who comes to him is cured. He has to only
ensure that he confers a reasonable degree of care and competence.
NEGLIGENCE
BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
Negligence is the breach of a
legal duty to care caused by omission of doing something which a reasonable
manner in an ordinary course would do or doing something which a prudent man
would not do. Prima facie means carelessness in a matter in which the law
mandates carefulness resulting into harm and injury to the other. Thus, what
construes the essential ingredient of negligence is legal duty, breach and
inflicted harm or damage. Such negligence if caused by the medical
practitioners, be it a doctor or its staff would amount to medical negligence.
“The prime object of medical
professional is to render service to humanity; reward or financial gain is a
subordinate consideration…
”Nowadays, a lot medical
negligence cases are being reported in India thereby distorting the bondage of
trust between the doctor and a patient. Medical Practitioners such as doctors
are expected to have skill and knowledge to render medical care with
reasonableness and caution. “The doctor has discretion in choosing treatment,
which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively
greater in cases of ‘emergency’.
However, no person is perfect
be it a renowned specialist. A doctor can be held liable for negligence only if
one can prove that she/ he is guilty of a failure that no doctor with ordinary
skills would be guilty of if acting with reasonable care. An error of judgement
constitutes negligence only if a reasonably competent professional with the
standard skills that the defendant professes to have, and acting with ordinary
care, would not have made the same error.
COMPONENTS
OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
A negligent act comprises of
three main components:
1. There should be existence
of legal duty towards the patient
2. Breach of the legal duty
3. Damage caused to the
patient
Existence
of legal duty: Apperson approaches to the medical practitioners with a
trust that that he warrants that skills and special knowledge which is required
for cure the problem. It is not always for the patient to enter into a written
contract with them. There is implied contract between the practitioners and the
patient, thus erring by the doctor makes him/her liable for breach of professional
duty. It is the legal duty of the medical practitioner to exercise all due
diligence as is expected in ordinary course from his contemporaries Failure on
the part of doctor to exercise reasonable care and caution which was incumbent
so, would amounts to negligence.
Now the main issue is what
construes ‘Reasonable care’ by the doctors? The Indian judiciary
through its various ruling same submitted the major aspect of ‘Reasonable care’
by the doctors. In the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v.
Dr.Trimbark Babu Godbole and Anr.,it has been laid down that: “When a
doctor is consulted by a patient, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties
which are: (a) duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, (b) duty
of care in deciding what treatment to give, and (c) duty of care in the
administration of that treatment”. ‘Reasonable’ care means
exercise of that degree of care and skill which could be expected of a normal, prudent
practitioner of the same professional experience. In addition, negligence
cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with
reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course
of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if
the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
But if he falls below the reasonable standard of care and caution which must be
needed while treating their patients, then the doctors are said to be liable
for medical negligence which is a professional negligence.
Breach
of legal duty: There is certainly the breach of legal duty if the doctor
does not exercise the reasonable care as expected by him/her. But when it comes
to the failure in exercising and caution, such caution is to be judged at par with
what the ordinary experience of doctor has found to be sufficient. So also,
while analyzing the standard of care, circumscribing situation and knowledge of
the doctor at time of incident is taken into consideration. Such standards are
not expected to be of very high degree or otherwise, but what is expected from
man in the ordinary course of treatment.
Damages
caused by the breach: The injury which is suffered due to negligent act of
medical practitioners is liable to get compensated either under Civil Law or
Criminal Law. Both the remedy is available but not every negligent act imposes
liability. The degree of negligence is to be determined by the court before
such imposition. At various situations, the victim can invoke the principle ofres ispa
loquituror “the thing speaks for itself” where no proof of negligence
is required, the accident is itself sufficient. This principle is applied by
the hon’ble he National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dr
Janak Kantimathi Nathan v. Murlidhar Eknath Masane.
LIABILITY
ON DOCTORS
A doctor is not necessarily
liable in every case where injury is reported by the patient. It is
scientifically proved every individuals body is subjected to various variation
in health, which can arise anytime. It is unforeseeable for a doctor too.
Therefore, the doctors cannot be held liable for the death of patients which
occurs due to ‘unforseeability’ of their condition. It is
argued that it will be doing disservice to the community at large if the court
were to impose liability on doctors and hospitals for everything that happens
to go wrong. In Dr. Ganesh Prasad and Anr.v. Lal Janamajay Nath
Shahdeo, 11th National Commission reiterated the principle that: ‘Where
proper treatment is given, death occurring due to process of disease and its
complication, it cannot be held that doctors and hospitals are negligent and
orders of lower fora do not uphold the claim and award compensation’. In this
case, a four-and-a-half-year-old child suffering from cerebral malaria was
admitted to the hospital. A life-saving injection was given. As opined by the
child specialist, doses were safe and the treatment was proper. Though the
death of the child is unfortunate, Negligence cannot be attributed to the
doctor. Error of judgment resulting into death of a person can impose liability
if it is error of judgment due to negligence not a mere error of judgement. The
courts recognized the later one as not being the kind of a breach of the duty
of care. At the time when the decision made, it does not seem wrong. It is only
the due consideration of all precautions needed while taking the decisions to
escape liability if some wrong happens or injury is caused to a person while
exercising that decision.
REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO THE PATIENTS
Patient who is the sufferer
from the negligent act of the doctors can seek remedy under various laws:
Compensatory
action involving complaint against doctors, staff or hospital whether
private or government hospitals who committed negligence seeking monetary
compensation before Civil Court under law of Torts or Law of Contract, High
Court under theconstitutional law, or Consumer Courts under Consumer Protection
Act (Individual liability and Institutional or hospital liability)
Punitive
action involving criminal complaint under Indian Penal Code against the
doctor.
Disciplinary
action which involves Complaint seeking disciplinary action against the
medical practitioner or the hospitals as the case may be, before statutory
bodies governing the medical practitioners such as Indian Medical Council or
State Medical Council.
Recommendatory
action involves lodging of complaint before the National/State Human
Rights Commission seeking compensation.
Reasonable
degree of care Reasonable degree of care and skill means that the degree
of care and competence that an “ordinary competent
member of the profession who professes to have those skills would exercise in
the circumstance in question.” At this stage, it may be
necessary to note the distinction between the standard of
care and the degree of care. The standard of care is a constant and remains the
same in all cases. It is the requirement that the conduct of the
doctor be reasonable and need not necessarily conform to
the highest degree of care or the lowest degree of care possible. The degree of
care is a variable and depends on the circumstance. It is used to
refer to what actually amounts to reasonableness
in a given situation.
Thus, though the same standard
of care is expected from a generalist and a specialist, the degree of care
would be different. In other words, both are expected to take reasonable care
but what amounts to reasonable care with regard to the specialist differs from
what amount of reasonable care is standard for the generalist. In fact, the law
expects the specialist to exercise the ordinary skill of this speciality and
not of any ordinary doctor. Though the courts have accepted the need to impose
a higher degree of duty on a specialist, they have refused to lower it in the
case of a novice. Another question that arises is with regard to the knowledge
that is expected from a doctor. Should it include the latest developments in
the field, hence require constant updating or is it enough to follow what has
been traditionally followed? It has been recognized by the courts that what
amounts to reasonableness changes with time. The standard, as stated clearly
herein before requires that the doctor possess reasonable knowledge. Hence, we
can conclude that a doctor has to constantly update his knowledge to meet the
standard expected of him. Furthermore, since only reasonable knowledge is
required, it may not be necessary for him to be aware of all the developments
that have taken place. We have, until now, examined the duty of a doctor in so
far as treating a patient is concerned or in diagnosing the ailment. Doctors
are, however, imposed with a duty to take the consent of a person/patient
before performing acts like surgical operations and in some cases treatment as
well. To summarize, any act that requires contact with the patient has to be
consented by the patient. A duty of care is imposed on the doctors in taking
the patient's consent. Naturally, a question arises as to what is this duty of
care. As per the judicial pronouncements, this duty is to disclose all such information
as would be relevant or necessary for the patient to make a decision.
Therefore, the duty does not extend to disclosing all possible information in
this regard. Furthermore, this duty does not extend to warning a patient of all
the normal attendant risks of an operation. The standard of care required of a
doctor while obtaining consent is again that of a reasonable doctor, as in
other cases.
When
does the liability arise?
The liability of a doctor
arises not when the patient has suffered any injury, but when the injury has resulted
due to the conduct of the doctor, which has fallen below that of reasonable
care. In other words, the doctor is not liable for every injury suffered by a
patient. He is liable for only those that are a consequence of a breach of his
duty. Hence, once the existence of a duty has been established, the plaintiff
must still prove the breach of duty and the causation. In case there is no
breach or the breach did not cause the damage, the doctor will not be liable.
In order to show the breach of duty, the burden on the plaintiff would be to
first show what is considered as reasonable under those circumstances and then
that the conduct of the doctor was below this degree. It must be noted that it
is not sufficient to prove a breach, to merely show that there exists a body of
opinion which goes against the practice/conduct of the doctor.
With regard to causation, the
court has held that it must be shown that of all the possible reasons for the
injury, the breach of duty of the doctor was the most probable cause. It is not
sufficient to show that the breach of duty is merely one of the probable
causes. Hence, if the possible causes of an injury are the negligence of a
third party, an accident, or a breach of duty care of the doctor, then it must
be established that the breach of duty of care of the doctor was the most
probable cause of the injury to discharge the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Normally, the liability arises
only when the plaintiff is able to discharge the burden on him of proving negligence.
However, in some cases like a swab left over the abdomen of a patient or the
leg amputated instead of being put in a cast to treat the fracture, the
principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (meaning thereby ‘the thing speaks for
itself’) might come into play. The following are the necessary conditions of
this principle.
1. Complete control rests with
the doctor.
2. It is the general
experience of mankind that the accident in question does not happen without negligence.
This principle is often misunderstood as a rule of evidence, which it is not.
It is a principle in the law of torts. When this principle is applied, the
burden is on the doctor/defendant to explain how the incident could have
occurred without negligence. In the absence of any such explanation, liability
of the doctor arises. Normally, a doctor is held liable for only his acts
(other than cases of vicarious liability). However, in some cases, a doctor can
be held liable for the acts of another person which injures the patient. The need
for such a liability may arise when the person committing the act may not owe a
duty of care at all to the patient or that in committing the act he has not
breached any duty. A typical example of a case where such a situation may arise
is in the case of a surgery. If a junior doctor is involved as part of the
team, then his duty, as far as the exercise of the specialist skill is
concerned, is to seek the advice or help of a senior doctor. He will have
discharged his duty once he does this and will not be liable even if he
actually commits the act which causes the injury. In such a case, it is the
duty of the senior doctor to have advised him properly. If he did not do so,
then he would be the one responsible for the injury caused to the patient,
though he did not commit the act.
COMPENSATORY
ACTION
ACTION
UNDER LAW OF TORTS
Law of torts circumscribes the
principle to compensate the victim for the injury or loss suffered by him.
Since it is in the nature of civil proceeding a civil court has to be
approached to seek the remedy. Under the law of torts action for medical
malpractice lies in the civil court where the burden of proof is high and
adheres to the strict proof of evidence. Mere complying with the requirements
like duty of care, breach of duty and damages will not sufficient to find the
defendant doctor being guilty of negligence. The issue of negligence should be
proved by the plaintiff with the cogent evidence of medical expert and medical
records.
ACTION
UNDER LAW OF CONTRACTS
The scope of liability of the
health professional for the breach contractual is very limited in comparing with
law of torts. Whenever a patient approaches a private health professional for
medical care, the relationship between the hospital and the patient is one of
contractual in nature. The civil suit under law of contract is not maintainable
unless the plaintiff proves that he availed of service of the defendant health
carer for consideration and thus a contractual obligation exists between the
patient and the doctor No suit can be brought in the civil court for remedies
under the law of contract without hiring the service for
REMEDY
UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
A consumer that has suffered
loss or damage as a result of any deficiency of service can file a complaint under
Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred as Act), 1986. The Act ensures
that the aggrieved consumer should be provided with remedy through its three
tier quasi-judicial bodies: – District forum, State Commission and National
Commission.
DEFICIENCY
OF SERVICE
Deficiency of service means
any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or
manner of performance that is required to be maintained by or under any law for
the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in
pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
PATIENT
AS A CONSUMER
In order to file complaint
against the medical practitioner under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act
1986, the patient should justify with the definition of ‘consumer,’ which
includes a person who have hired or availed of any services for a
consideration. The element of consideration serves as a test to determine
whether a patient is a consumer or not.
1. A) the service must be
hired by him;
2. B) The service should have
been rendered to him;
3. C) For hiring service, he
must have paid or promised to pay consideration 153.
If services are rendered free
of charge, it cannot be hire. If a patient gets free medical treatment in a governmental
hospital or in any charitable hospital, without payment, is not a ‘consumer.’
MEDICAL
SERVICES COVERED BY SEC 2(1) (I) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
To initiate action against
medical practitioner under the said Act, the services rendered by medical practitioner,
hospital or nursing home should fall within services the definition of service
under section 2(1)(i) of the Act. The expression ‘service’
has been defined as meaning “service of any description which is made available
to potential users.” In IMA v. V.P. Shantha and others, the Supreme
Court of India observed that the medical services rendered by the medical
practitioners are covered by Sec. 2 (1) (i) of the Act. It excludes free
services or services under a contract of personal service.
REMEDY
UNDER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Per se the Constitution of
India does not guarantee any special rights to the patient. However, the same
can be interpreted under widest interpretation to the Article
21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to health and
medical treatment. The right to life would be meaningless unless medical care
is assured to a sick person. Article19(1) provides six
fundamental freedoms to all its citizens which can be restricted only on grounds
mentioned in Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of the
Constitution. These fundamental freedoms can be effectively enjoyed only if a
person has healthy life to live with dignity and free from any kind of disease
or exploitation which further ensured by the mandate of Article 21 of the
Constitution. When breach of this right occurs, the health care provider will
be held liable for negligence.
JUSTICE
DELIVERY SYSTEM UNDER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PUNITIVE
REMEDY
HIERARCHY
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA
CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE UNDER SECTION 304 -A of INDIAN PENAL CODE
To impose criminal liability
under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should
have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that
the act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of
another’s negligence. It must be the causa causans (immediate or operating
cause); it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non (a
necessary or inevitable cause). That is to say, there must be a direct nexus
between the death of a person and rash or negligent act of the accused. The
doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes death, is the essence of Section
304-A. There is distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. ‘Rashness’
means an act done with the consciousness of a risk that evil
consequences will follow. (It is an act done with the knowledge that evil
consequence will follow but with the hope that it will not). A rash act implies
an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference as to its consequences.
A negligent act refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient
precaution or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or
illegal consequences. It implies an omission to do something, which a
reasonable man, in the given circumstances, would not do. Rashness is a higher
degree of negligence. The rashness or negligence must be of such nature so as
to be termed as a criminal act of negligence or rashness. Criminal rashness is
resulting into a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and
that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge
that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of
doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal
negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable
and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public
generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of
the accused person to have adopted.
RASH OR
NEGLIGENT ACT IN MEDICAL TREATMENT
A doctor can be punished under
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing death by arash or
negligent act, say in a case where death of a patient is caused during
operation by a doctor not qualified to operate. According to a recent Supreme
Court decision, the standard of negligencerequired to be proved against a
doctor in cases of criminal negligence under Section 304A of the IPC should be
so high that it can be described as ‘gross negligence’ or ‘recklessness’, not merely
lack ofnecessary care. Criminal liability will not be attracted if the patient
dies due to error in judgment or accident. Every civil negligence is not
criminal negligence, and for civil negligence to become criminal it should be
of such a nature that it could be termed as gross negligence. A doctor is not
criminally liable for patient’s death, unless his negligence or incompetence
passes beyond a mere matter of competence and shows such a disregard for life
and safety, as to amount to a crime against the state.
DEGREE
OF NEGLIGENCE
To prosecute a medical
professional for negligence under criminal law, it must be shown that the accused
did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and
circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would
have done or failed to do. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness
or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of
such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of
Such nature which likely may cause harm. Hon’ble SC has held that “negligence
in the context of medical profession necessarily called for a treatment with a
difference, the negligence attributed to the doctor must be gross in nature to
make him liable for criminal prosecution” such a degree that injury was most
likely imminent.
Dr.
Suresh Gupta’s Case – Supreme Court of India, 2004 – the court held that the
legal position was quite clear and well settled that whenever a patient died
due to medical negligence, the doctor was liable in civil law for paying the
compensation. Only when the negligence was so gross and his act was so reckless
as to endanger the life of the patient, criminal law for offence under section
304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 will apply.
DISCIPLINARY
ACTION
COMPLAINT
BEFORE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
The Medical
council of India grants recognition to medical degrees granted by
universities or medical institutions in India and such other qualifications
granted by medical institutions in foreign countries. It lays down and
prescribes the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognition
to the degrees awarded by Universities in India. Furthermore, the Council is
empowered to have disciplinary control over the medical practitioners including
the power to remove the names of medical practitioners permanently or for a
specific period from the medical registers when after due inquiry they are
found to have been guilty of serious professional misconduct.
GROUNDS
TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
It includes:
• Conviction of
any offence by a court of law and
• Guilty of
professional misconduct.
Any conduct of the
practitioner which brings in disgraceful to the professional status what is
known as “serious professional misconduct,” for e.g. adultery or improper
conduct or association with a patient, conviction by a court of law for
offences involving moral turpitude, issuing false certificates, reports and
other documents; issuing certificate of efficiency in modern medicine to
unqualified person or non-medical person; performing an abortion or illegal
operation for which there is no medical, surgical indication, revealing
identity of a patient without his permission; performing an operation which
results in sterility, without obtaining the written consent of patient/relative
and refusing on religious grounds alone to extend medical assistance etc. If
anyone is found guilty of offences mentioned in the warning notice issued by
the appropriate medical council, it constitutes serious “professional
misconduct”.
COMPLAINT
BEFORE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSIONS
Irrespective of different
remedies medical negligence and medical malpractice discussed above, there is
yet an alternative mechanism for the protection of patients’ rights under
National and State Humans Rights Commission (NHRC and SHRC). Each patient
irrespective of its caste, creed, religion, economic status enjoys various
Human Rights including Right to Life. Human Right Commissions at national and state
level protects are guardian of these rights. For instance, NHRC/SHRC can hold
the state accountable for violation of human rights of patients. NHRC can play
vital role in fulfilment of national and international human rights norms.
Patient can file complaints regarding violation of human rights before
NHRC/SHRC as the case may be. NHRC/SHRC then seeks explanations from the government
for such violations and can also initiate proceedings including independent
investigation, issuance of summons to witness, examination on oath etc. Thus,
NHRC/SHRC is endowed with the powers of a Civil Court. It persuades the state
to pay compensation to the victims, patients in present case and also
recommends for the grants of immediate interim relief to the victim or his /
her family.
When
there is no liability
A doctor is not necessarily
liable in all cases where a patient has suffered an injury. This may either be due
to the fact that he has a valid defense or that he has not breached the duty of
care. Error of judgment can either be a mere error of judgment or error of
judgment due to negligence. Only in the case of the former, it has been recognized
by the courts as not being a breach of the duty of care. It can be described as
the recognition in law of the human fallibility in all spheres of life. A mere
error of judgment occurs when a doctor makes a decision that turns out to be
wrong. It is situation in which only in retrospect can we say there was an
error. At the time when the decision was made, it did not seem wrong. If,
however, due consideration of all the factors was not taken, then it would
amount to an error of judgment due to negligence.
JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY
By and large the following
legal issues have been addressed and responded to by different forums and
Courts in India.
Charge
of Medical Negligence against Professional Doctors
From the time of Lord Denning
until now it has been held in several judgments that a charge of professional
negligence against the medical professional stood on a different footing from a
charge of negligence against the driver of a motor car. The burden of proof is
correspondingly greater on theperson who alleges negligence against a doctor.
It is a known fact that with the best skill in the world, things sometimes went
wrong in medical treatment or surgical operation. A doctor was not to be held negligent
simply because something went wrong. The National Commission as well as the
Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the doctor is not liable for
negligence because of someone else of better skill or knowledge would have
prescribed a different treatment or operated in a different way. He is not
guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted
as proper by a reasonable body of medical professionals. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna vs. Dr.
Trimbak, AIR 1969 SC 128, has held the above view that is still considered to
be a landmark judgment for deciding a case of negligence. In the case of Indian
Medical Association vs. Santha, the Apex Court has decided
that the skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor and it
is incumbent upon the Complainant to prove that a doctor was negligent in the
line of treatment that resulted in the life of the patient. Therefore, a Judge
can find a doctor guilty only when it is proved that he has fallen short of the
standard of reasonable medical care. The principle of Res-Ipsa-Loquitur has not
been generally followed by the Consumer Courts in India including the National
Commission or even by the Apex Court in deciding the case under this Act. In
catena of decisions, it has been held that it is for the Complainant to prove
the negligence or deficiency in service by adducing expert evidence or opinion
and this fact is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Mere allegation of negligence
will be of no help to the Complainant.[3]
What
Constitutes Medical Negligence?
Failure of an operation and
side effects are not negligence. The term negligence is defined as the absence
or lack of care that a reasonable person should have taken in the circumstances
of the case. In the allegation of negligence in a case of wrist drop, the
following observations were made. Nothing has been mentioned in the complaint
or in the grounds of appeal about the type of care desired from the doctor in
which he failed. It is not said anywhere what type of negligence was done
during the course of the operation. Nerves may be cut down at the time of
operation and mere cutting of a nerve does not amount to negligence. It is not
said that it has been deliberately done. To the contrary it is also not said that
the nerves were cut in the operation and it was not cut at the time of the
accident. No expert evidence whatsoever has been produced. Only the report of
the Chief Medical Officer of Haridwar has been produced wherein it said that
the patient is a case of post-traumatic wrist drop. It is not said that it is
due to any operation or the negligence of the doctor. The mere allegation will
not make out a case of negligence, unless it is proved by reliable evidence and
is supported by expert evidence. It is true that the operation has been
performed. It is also true that the Complainant has many expenses but unless
the negligence of the doctor is proved, she is not entitled to any compensation.
What is
deficiency of service?
Deficiency of service means
any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or
manner of performance that is required to be maintained by or under any law for
the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in
pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
MEDICAL
NEGLIGENCE - DEFINITIONAL ASPECTS
Negligence is simply the
failure to exercise due care. The three ingredients of negligence are as follows:
1. The defendant owes a duty
of care to the plaintiff.
2. The defendant has breached
this duty of care.
3. The plaintiff has suffered
an injury due to this breach.
Medical negligence is no
different. It is only that in a medical negligence case, most often, the doctor
is the defendant.
Overview
of Consequences
The consequences of legally
cognizable medical negligence can broadly be put into three categories:2 (i) Criminal
liability, (ii) monetary liability, and (iii) disciplinary action. Criminal
liability can be fastened pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“IPC”), which are general in nature and do not provide specifically for
“medical negligence.” For instance, Section 304A of IPC3 (which deals
with the death of a person by any rash or negligent act and leads to imprisonment
up to 2 years) is used to deal with both cases of accidents caused due to rash
and negligent motor vehicle driving and also medical negligence leading to the
death of a patient. Similarly, other general provisions of IPC, such as Section
3374 (causing hurt) and 3385 (causing grievous hurt), are
also often deployed in relation to medical negligence cases. Civil liability,
i.e., monetary compensation can be fastened under the general law by pursuing a
remedy before appropriate civil court or consumer forums. An action seeking
imposition of the civil liability on the erring medical professional is
initiated by dependents of the deceased patient or by the patient himself (if
alive) to seek compensation. Doors of permanent lok
adalats, constituted pursuant to the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987,
can also be knocked at by a complainant seeking relief in the relation to
services “in a hospital or dispensary” which are considered to be “public
utility services” within the meaning thereof, wherein first a conciliation is
attempted and thereafter determination on merits of the matter is made.
Permanent lok adalats are conferred powers akin to that of a civil court in
specified matters (such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses)
and have jurisdiction in the matters up to Rs. 1 Crore.6 Another
consequence of medical negligence could be in the form of imposition of
penalties pursuant to disciplinary action. Professional misconduct by medical
practitioners is governed by the Indian Medical Council (IMC) (Professional
Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, made under IMC Act, 1956.7 Medical
Council of India (MCI) and the appropriate State Medical Councils are empowered
to take disciplinary action whereby the name of the practitioner could be
removed forever or be suspended. Professional misconduct is, however, a broad
term which may or may not include medical negligence within its fold. For
instance, in the context of lawyers, it is not only a professional misconduct
but other misconduct also which may lead to imposition of disciplinary penalties,
for example, violation of prohibition on liquor under Bombay Prohibition Act,
1949, by the advocate;8 and perhaps a corollary may be extended for cases of
medical negligence by medical professionals.
Basic
Features of Medical Negligence and Standard of Care
To comprehend the scope of
negligence, it is important to understand the scope of the duty imposed on a
doctor or medical practitioner. A doctor or other medical practitioner, among
others, has a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case or not,
duty in deciding what treatment to give, duty of care in administration of that
treatment, duty not to undertake any procedure beyond his or her control, and
it is expected that the practitioner will bring a reasonable degree of skill
and knowledge and will exercise a reasonable degree of care.9
Negligence, simply put, is a
breach of duty of care resulting in injury or damage.
The causal relationship
between breach and injury is a must for fastening the liability of negligence, and
such cause must be “direct” or “proximate.”10 It is important to note that the
test is an “or” one, and therefore the casual link can be either direct
causation or proximate causation, and in both cases, negligence can be
ascribed. For instance, where a patient with about 50% burns died 40 days after
the date of a wrong blood type transfusion in spite of receiving substantial
care thereafter postdetection of error; the finding of medical negligence could
not be escaped as the causal relation between the transfusion of wrong blood
type and death was proximate.11
The line between civil
liability and criminal liability is thin, and no sufficiently good criteria
have yet been devised by the Supreme Court providing any clear and lucid
guidance. The Supreme Court in Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT Delhi12 put the
standard for fastening criminal liability on a high pedestal and required the
medical negligence to be “gross” or “reckless.” Mere lack of necessary care, attention,
or skill was observed to be insufficient to hold one criminally
liable for negligence. It was observed in Dr. Suresh Gupta that
mere inadvertence or simply a want of a certain degree of care might create
civil liability but will not be sufficient to attract criminal liability. In
this case, a young man was stated to have died during the simple procedure for
nasal deformity for “not introducing a cuffed endotracheal tube of proper size
as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage,”
and the prosecution under Section 304A IPC was quashed by the Supreme Court
setting aside the order of the High Court which had declined to quash the
prosecution. The soundness of the view of the Supreme Court was subsequently
doubted considering that word “gross” is absent in Section 304A IPC and that
different standards cannot be applied for actions of the negligence of doctors
and others. Consequently, the matter was placed for reconsideration before a
bench of higher strength.13
Three-judge bench (bench
strength in Dr. Suresh Gupta was two) in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab14 on a
reconsideration endorsed the approach of high degree of negligence being the prerequisite
for fastening criminal liability as adopted in Dr. Suresh Gupta, and it was
observed that”[i] n order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or
criminal negligence, it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of
such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of
such a degree that injury was most likely imminent.” Supreme Court in Jacob
Mathew observed that the subject of negligence in the context of medical
profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. In this case,
an aged patient in an advanced stage of terminal cancer was experiencing
breathing difficulties and the oxygen cylinder connected to the mouth of the
patient was found to be empty. By the time replacement could be made, the
patient had died. Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and
held that the doctors could not be criminally prosecuted. It would not be
surprising if different benches of the Supreme Court in the above facts were to
arrive at different conclusions. High Courts in both of the above cases, i.e.,
Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew surely held views different from that of the
Supreme Court. The abstract principles sometimes do pose difficulty in their
application to facts, much like in the practice of medicine. The criminal
liability and civil liability are not exclusive remedies and for the same
negligence, both actions may be available.
“Neither the very highest nor
a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular
circumstances of each case is what the law requires,”15 as the standard of care
from a doctor. It has been held by the courts that in the cases of medical
negligence, Bolam test is to be applied, i.e., “standard of the ordinary
skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill,” and not of
“the highest expert skill.”16 This is applicable to both “diagnosis” and “treatment.”
It is noted that the Supreme Court has now observed the need to reconsider the
parameters set down in Bolam test.17
Errors of judgment do not
necessarily imply negligence.18 Gross mistakes would, however, invite the finding
of negligence such as use of wrong drug or wrong gas during the course of
anesthetic process, delegation of the responsibility to a junior with the
knowledge that the junior is incapable of performing the duties properly,
removal of the wrong limb, performing an operation on the wrong patient or
injecting a drug which the patient is allergic to without looking at the
outpatient card containing the warning, and leaving swabs or other items inside
the patients.19 Persons not qualified in general or a certain branch of
medicine yet embarking upon a treatment course in that field has been held to
be negligent.20 Not taking care of a premature baby who is given supplemental
oxygen and blood transfusion for prevention of a disease called retinopathy of
prematurity (which such premature children are highly prone to and which makes
them blind progressively), and not seeking views of pediatric ophthalmologist,
has been held to be an incidence of negligence.21 Instances of senior doctor
deciding to do a surgery but actually taking up another surgery at the same
time and leaving the patient to the care of a junior doctor, who is not
incompetent but has no experience as such (even if such junior doctor performs
the surgery without mistakes) has also led to the finding of medical
negligence.22
In the cases involving medical
negligence, at the beginning, the person alleging the negligence has the initial
onus to make out a case of negligence, and thereafter the onus shifts on to the
doctor or the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or
diligence.23 It may also be noted that for imposition of civil liability on the
hospital, it is not necessary that treating doctors or the nursing staff be
made a party (the hospital alone can be the party to the proceeding), and it is
immaterial if the medical professionals are the permanent staff or come on a
visiting basis.24
The standard of care is to be
judged keeping in view the body of knowledge and equipment available at the
time of the incident. For example, if the allegation is that a doctor was
negligent on account of his failure to use a particular equipment which should
have been used, the court would consider whether such equipment was “generally
available at that point of time” and therefore available for use.25 Every
hospital cannot be expected to have state-of-the-art facilities and be fully
equipped with the latest inventions and techniques. Sometimes, it becomes
difficult to prove that certain equipment was generally available or not
considering that there is no central or regional record of equipment used by
medical professionals or hospitals. For instance, in a case where post a hernia
operation in Hospital A, the arterial saturation of a diabetic patient could
not be maintained due to unknown reasons, the patient had to be shifted to Hospital
B which was equipped with a mechanical ventilator considering that Hospital A
did not have it. The patient became comatose by the time he reached Hospital B
and ultimately passed away. In this case, the State Commission fastened civil
liability on Hospital A holding it guilty of medical negligence, among others,
on the assumption (without any actual finding) that mechanical ventilators were
generally available in Jaipur, Rajasthan, in September 2002 and Hospital A
should have also had the same.26
While dealing with medical
negligence cases, the opinions of the medical experts are often called for from
both sides. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that when a
court has to form an opinion on a point of science, the opinion of a person
especially skilled in such science is considered “relevant.” It is to be noted
that a “relevant” opinion is not synonymous to the opinion being “conclusive”
and law reports are replete with illustrations of expert opinions being
discarded for one reason or another. The real function of the expert is to put
before the court all the material together with reasons which induce him to
come to a certain conclusion so that the court, even though not an expert, may
form its own judgment using its own observation of those materials.27 Experts
only render opinions and those that are “intelligible, convincing, and
tested”28 become important factors in the determination of the matter together
with other evidence. Therefore, while the courts do not substitute their views
for the view of the experts but if they determine that the course adopted by
the medical professional concerned was inconceivable or highly unreasonable, it
would be open to the court to return a finding of medical negligence.
When
does a duty arise?
It is well known that a doctor
owes a duty of care to his patient. This duty can either be a contractual duty
or a duty arising out of tort law. In some cases, however, though a
doctor-patient relationship is not established, the courts have imposed a duty
upon the doctor. In the words of the Supreme Court “every doctor, at the
governmental hospital or elsewhere, has a professional obligation to extend his
services with due expertise for protecting life” (Parmanand Kataria vs. Union of
India[1]). These cases are however, clearly restricted to situations where
there is danger to the life of the person. Impliedly, therefore, in other
circumstances the doctor does not owe a duty.
What is
the Standard of Care?
It is now a settled principle
of law that a medical practitioner will bring to his task a reasonable degree of
skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the
very highest nor the very lowest degree of care and competence judged in the
light of circumstances in each case is what the law requires. Judged from this
yardstick, post-operative infection or shortening of the leg was not due to any
negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
Appellant. Deficiency in service thus cannot be fastened on the opposite
party.[5]In a case that led to visual impairment as a side effect, the
following observations were made. Theliterature with regard to lariago clearly
mentioned that the side effect of this medicine if taken for a longer duration
can effect eyesight but this is not a fact in this case. Besides, there is no
expert evidence on record to show that use of this medicine caused damage to
the patient's eyesight. Even for argument's sake, if it is accepted that this
medicine caused damage to the patient's eyesight, if the Respondent-doctor is
one who has advised his patient to use this medicine after an examination in which
he found the patient to be suffering from malaria, in that case as well the
doctor-Respondent cannot be held guilty of negligence or deficient in his
service. However, as stated above in this case the medicine has been used by
the patient in low doses for a few days and there is no expert evidence to show
that the use of medicine has affected his eyesight. Therefore, the
Complainant-Appellant has failed to prove that the Respondent was negligent and
deficient in his duty as a doctor.[6]
Proof of
Medical Negligence
It has been held in different
judgments by the National Commission and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a
charge of professional negligence against a doctor stood on a different footing
from a charge of negligence against a driver of a vehicle. The burden of proof
is correspondingly greater on the person who alleges negligence against a
doctor. It is a known fact that even with a doctor with the best skills, things
sometimes go wrong during medical treatment or in a surgery. A doctor is not to
be held negligent simply because something went wrong. It is an admitted fact
that the Complainant's eyesight was not restored after the operation was
conducted by the Appellant but on this ground alone a doctor can not be held
negligent because even after adopting all necessary precautions and care the
result of the operation may not be satisfactory since it depends on various
other factors. The contention of the Appellant was that the patient was
suffering from diabetes and blood pressure and in many such cases eyesight is
not restored after the operation however carefully it is done. In this case,
there is nothing on record to show that something went wrong due to an act of
the Appellantdoctor. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the
Appellant fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in
their field, so much so that their conduct might be deserving of censure. The
Appellant cannot be liable for negligence because someone else of better skill
or knowledge would have prescribed a different method of operation in different
way. The evidence suggests that the Appellant has performed the operation and
acted in accordance with the practice regularly accepted and adopted by him in
this hospital and several patients are regularly treated for their eye
problems. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna vs. Dr.
Triambak, AIR 1969 Supreme Court page 128 has held the above view and this view
has been further confirmed in the case of the Indian Medical Association vs. Santha. The
Apex Court and the National Commission has held that the skill of a medical
practitioner differs from doctor to doctor and it is an incumbent upon the
Complainant to prove that the Appellant was negligent in the line of treatment
that resulted in the loss of eyesight. A Judge can find a doctor guilty only
when it is proved that he has fallen short of a standard of reasonable medical
care. The fact and circumstances of the case before us show that the Appellant
has attended to the patient with due care, skill, and diligence. Simply because
the patient's eyesight was not restored satisfactorily, this account alone is
not grounds for holding the doctor guilty of negligence and deficient in his
duty. It is settled law that it is for the Complainant to prove the negligence
or deficiency in service by adducing expert evidence or opinion and this fact
is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Mere allegation of negligence will
be of no help to the Complainant
The following cases of alleged
medical negligence provide an insight into how the final decision is reached by
the judicial bodies. “All medical negligence cases concern various questions of
fact, when we say burden of proving negligence lies on the Complainant, it
means he has the task of convincing the court that his version of the facts is
the correct one”. No expert opinion has been produced by the Complainant to
contradict the report of the Board of Doctors. The appeal of the Complainant
was dismissed with costs as “No expert opinion has been produced by him.” In a
case of an improper union of the patella, no expert has been produced by the
Complainant to prove negligence of the opposite party. Thus, it cannot be said
with exactness that treatment of the Complainant by the opposite party was
against the norms prescribed under the medical jurisprudence or that the
opposite party in any way was negligent or deficient in the performance of his
duties. “Allegation of medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the
person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record or
by way of evidence”. The complaint of medical negligence was dismissed because
the applicant failed to establish and prove any instance of medical negligence.
“Merely because the operation
did not succeed, the doctor cannot be said to be negligent” and the appeal of
the doctor was allowed.
“A mere allegation will not
make a case of negligence unless it is proved by reliable evidence and is supported
by expert evidence” and the appeal was dismissed. “The commission cannot
constitute itself into an expert body and contradict the statement of the
doctor unless there is something contrary on the record by way of an expert
opinion or there is any medical treatise on which reliance could be based” and
the Revision petition of the doctor was allowed. In another case, an X-ray
report indicated a small opacity that similar to an opaque shadow that becomes
visible for many causes other than a calculus. It could not be assumed that
still stone existed in the right kidney that had not been operated upon. Under
the circumstances, we do not think that any case of negligence has been made by
the Complainant. This petition is, therefore, allowed.
Sanctity
of professional judgments and other limitations
The legal system has to strike
a careful balance between the autonomy of a doctor to make judgments and the
rights of a patient to be dealt with fairly. Indian courts tend to give
sufficient leeway to doctors and expressly recognize the complexity of the
human body, inexactness of medical science, the inherent subjectivity of the
process, genuine scope for error of judgment, and the importance of the autonomy
of the medical professional. Few observations of Supreme Court in this context
are worthy of reproduction:
“101. The Commission should
have realized that different doctors have different approaches, for instance,
some have more radical while some have more conservative approaches. All
doctors cannot be fitted into a straitjacketed formula and cannot be penalized
for departing from that formula….102. While this court has no sympathy for
doctors who are negligent; it must also be said that frivolous complaints against
doctors have increased by leaps and bounds in our country, particularly after
the medical profession was placed within the purview of the Consumer Protection
Act. To give an example, earlier when a patient who had a symptom of having a
heart attack would come to a doctor, the doctor would immediately inject him
with morphia or pethidine injection before sending him to the Cardiac Care Unit
because in cases of heart attack time is the essence of the matter. However, in
some cases, the patient died before he reached the hospital. After the medical
profession was brought under the Consumer Protection Act vide Indian Medical
Assn. v. V. P. Shantha ((1995) 6 SCC 651), doctors who administer morphia or
pethidine injection are often blamed and cases of medical negligence are filed
against them. The result is that many doctors have stopped giving (even as
family physicians) morphia or pethidine injection even in emergencies despite
the fact that from the symptoms the doctor honestly thought that the patient was
having a heart attack. This was out of fear that if the patient died the doctor
would have to face legal proceedings….111. The courts and the Consumer Fora are
not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over
that of specialists. …112. It must be remembered that sometimes despite their
best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails. For instance, sometimes despite
the best effort of a surgeon, the patient dies. That does not mean that the
doctor or the surgeon must be held to be guilty of medical negligence unless there
is some strong evidence to suggest that he/she is.”31 Courts
endeavor to protect the medical professionals from harassment but do not give
in to misplaced sympathies. In fact, the courts do not substitute their own
judgment with that of the medical professionals. For instance, adoption of a
procedure involving higher risk with the bona fide expectation of better
chances of success in preference to a procedure involving lesser risk but
greater chances of failure, even if it invites divergent views among doctors,
would not lead to a finding of negligence.32
The Need
for Expert Evidence in Medical Negligence Cases
The Commission cannot
constitute itself into an expert body and contradict the statement of the doctor
unless there is something contrary on the record by way of an expert opinion or
there is any medical treatise on which reliance could be based. In this case
there was a false allegation of urinary stone not being removed as shown by a
shadow in the xray “The burden of proving the negligent act or wrong diagnosis
was on the Complainant” and the appeal was dismissed in another case of alleged
medical negligence as no expert evidence was produced. The case discussed below
is not a case of apparent negligence on the part of the surgeon in conducting
the operation, but about the quality of the plate used for fixing the bone. In
the present case, the Complainant has not produced any expert witnesses to
prove that there was any fault in the performance of the operations. Fixation
of the bones by using plates is one of the recognized modes of treatment in the
case of fracture of the bones. If the opposite party has adopted the aforesaid
method, though subsequently the plate broke, negligence cannot be attributed to
the doctor. This is not a case where the wounds of the operation were infected or
any other complication arose. Breaking of the plate approximately 6 months
after it was placed cannot be attributed towards a negligent act of the doctor
in performing the operation. The District Forum rightly held that the
Complainant had failed to prove his case. There is nothing on the record to
suggest that there has been any negligence and/or deficiency in service on the
part of the Appellant except the oral submission of the Respondent/Complainant.
In such cases, before coming to a positive finding, there must be expert
evidence on record as has been held both by the National Commission as well as
the Apex Court. “As per the settled law, the onus to prove that there was
negligence” deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, while
diagnosing and treating the Complainant, lay heavily on the Complainant. In the
given facts, the Complainant has failed to discharge the onus that was on him.
The complaint was dismissed as the Complainant failed to discharge the onus to
prove negligence or deficiency in service. In medical negligence cases, it is
for the patient to establish his case against the medical professional and not
for the medical professional to prove that he acted with sufficient care and
skill. Refer to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Smt. Sudha Gupta and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 1999 (2)
MPLJ 259. The National commission has also taken the same view observing that a
mishap during operation cannot be said to be deficiency or negligence in
medical services. Negligence has to be established and cannot be presumed.
Refer to the decision of the National Commission in the case of Kanhiya Kumar
Singh vs. Park Medicare and Research Centre, III (1999) CPJ 9 (NC)
– (2000) NCJ (NC) 12. A similar view has been taken by the MRTP Commission in
the case of P.K. Pandey vs. Sufai Nursing Home, I (1999) CPJ 65
(MRTP) – 2000 NCJ (MRTP) 268. Followed by this, refer to the Commission in
Vaqar Mohammed Khan and Anr. vs. Dr. S. K.
Tandon, II (2000) CPJ 169.[17] Both the lower Fora have held that there is no
evidence brought on record by the Complainant to show that there was any
negligence by the Respondent while implanting the lens in the eye of the
Complainant resulting in a persistent problem in the left eye.[18] The
Complainant does not examine any expert on the subject to establish his
allegation of negligence on the part of the doctor. Unfortunate though the
incident is, the Complainant needs to establish negligence on the part of the
doctor to succeed in a case like this. We may observe that there is hardly any
cogent material to substantiate the allegation contained in the petition of
Complainant. Under the circumstances, we cannot but hold that the Complainant
has failed to prove the allegations against the opposite parties.[19] As held
by the National Commission in Sethuraman Subramaniam Iyer vs. Triveni
Nursing Home and anr., 1998 CTJ7, in the absence of such evidence regarding the
cause of death and absence of any expert medical evidence, the Complainants
have failed to prove negligence on the part of the opposite parties.[20]
In order to decide whether
negligence is established in any particular case, the alleged act, omission, or
course of conduct that is the subject of the complaint must be judged not by
ideal standards nor in the abstract but against the background of the
circumstances in which the treatment in question was given. The true test for
establishing negligence on the part of a doctor is as to whether he has been proven
guilty of such failure as no doctor with ordinary skills would be guilty of if
acting with reasonable care. Merely because a medical procedure fails, it
cannot be stated that the medical practitioner is guilty of negligence unless
it is proved that the medical practitioner did not act with sufficient care and
skill and the burden of proving this rests upon the person who asserts it. The
duty of a medical practitioner arises from the fact that he does something to a
human being that is likely to cause physical damage unless it is not done with
proper care and skill. There is no question of warranty, undertaking, or
profession of a skill. The standard of care and skill to satisfy the duty in
tort is that of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an
ordinary degree of professional skill. As per the law, a defendant charged with
negligence can clear himself if he shows that he acted in accordance with the
general and approved practice. It is not required in the discharge of his duty
of care that he should use the highest degree of skill, since this may never be
acquired. Even a deviation from normal professional practice is not necessary
in all cases evident of negligence.[21]
RECENT
SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT
The recent judgment pronounced
in Martin F. D'Souza V. Mohd. Ishfaq[22] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
quite explicitly addresses the concerns of medical professionals regarding the adjudicatory
process that is to be adopted by Courts and Forums in cases of alleged medical
negligence filed against Doctors.
In March 1991, the Respondent
who was suffering from chronic renal failure was referred by the Director of
Health Services to the Nanavati Hospital in Mumbai for the purpose of a kidney
transplant. At that stage, the Respondent was undergoing hemodialysis twice a
week and was awaiting a suitable kidney donor. On May 20, 1991, the Respondent
approached the Appellant doctor with a high fever, but he refused
hospitalization despite the advice of the Appellant. On May 29, 1991 the
Respondent who still had a high fever finally agreed to get admitted into the
hospital due to his serious condition. On June 3, 1991, the reports of the
urine culture and sensitivity showed a severe urinary tract infection due to
Klebsiella species (1 lac/ml) sensitive only to Amikacin and Methenamine
Mandelate. Methnamine Mandelate cannot be used in patients suffering from renal
failure. Since the urinary infection was sensitive only to Amikacin, an
injection of Amikacin was administered to the Respondet for 3 days (from June
5, 1991 to June 7, 1991). Upon treatment, the temperature of the Respondent rapidly
subsided. On June 11, 1991, the Respondent who presented to the hemodialysis
unit complained to the Appellant that he had slight tinnitus (ringing in the
ear). The Appellant has alleged that he immediately told the Respondent to stop
taking the Amikacin and Augmentin and scored out the treatment on the discharge
card. However, despite express instructions from the Appellant, the Respondent
continued taking Amikacin until June 17, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent was
not under the treatment of the Appellant. On June 14, 1991, June 18, 1991, and
June 20, 1991 the Respondent received hemodialysis at Nanavati Hospital and allegedly
did not complain of deafness during this period. On June 25, 1991, the
Respondent, on his own accord, was admitted to Prince Aly Khan Hospital. The
Complainant allegedly did not complain of deafness during this period and
conversed with doctors normally, as is proved from their evidence. On July 30,
1991, the Respondent was operated upon for a transplant and on August 13, 1991,
the Respondent was discharged from Prince Aly Khan Hospital after his
transplant. The Respondent returned to Delhi on August 14, 991 after his discharge.
On July 7, 1992, the
Respondent filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as his hearing
had been affected. The Appellant filed his reply stating, inter alia, that
there was no material brought on record by the Respondent to show any
co-relationship between the drugs prescribed and the state of his health. The
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed an order on October 6, 1993
directing the nomination of an expert from the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS) to examine the complaint and give an unbiased and
neutral opinion. AIIMS nominated Dr. P. Ghosh who was of the opinion that the
drug Amikacin was administered by the Appellant as a lifesaving measure and was
rightly used. It is submitted by the Appellant that the said report further makes
it clear that there has been no negligence on the part of the Appellant.
However, the National Commission has come to the conclusion that the Doctor was
negligent.
Treatment
without informed consent may also amount to negligence
The existence of
doctor–patient relationship is a prerequisite to fasten liability on the
doctor. The relationship is fiduciary in nature, and the obligation on the
medical practitioner is greater when the patient ordinarily has an imprecise
understanding of the ailment, diagnostic process, treatment, and all its
attendant consequences. Duty to act in the best interest, however, cannot be
stretched to a level where actions are taken against the will of the patient or
without the consent of the patient if the patient is capable of understanding.
Every patient has a right of self-determination and to reject the treatment
even if such rejection were to be considered foolish by most rationale
standards, and the medical professional cannot impose his will. Medical
practitioners can, however, act on the substituted consent, if the primary
consent is not available for a variety of reasons such as patient being a
minor, mentally unsound, and unconscious.
In Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha
Manchanda,29 a 44-year-old patient complaining of menstrual bleeding for
9 days, underwent an ultrasound test and was advised laparoscopy test under
general anesthesia for making an affirmative diagnosis. The patient, while
under general anesthesia, was subjected to a laparoscopic examination and
simultaneously with the consent of the mother waiting outside the operation
theater, abdominal hysterectomy (removal of uterus) and bilateral
salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes) were conducted.
It was held by the Supreme Court that consent taken for diagnostic
procedure/surgery is not valid for performing therapeutic surgery either conservative
or radical except in life-threatening or emergent situations. It was also held
that where the consent by the patient is for a particular operative surgery; it
cannot be treated as consent for an unauthorized additional procedure involving
removal of an organ on the ground that such removal is beneficial to the
patient or is likely to prevent some danger developing in future, if there is
no imminent danger to the life or health of the patient. Supreme Court in the
process of arriving at its judicial opinion examined the concept of “real
consent” in the UK and “informed consent” in the US and finding the US
standards to be too high and unsuitable for Indian conditions expressly
rejected the same. It was further held that a doctor must secure the consent of
the patient, and such consent should be “real and valid,” “adequate
information” is to be furnished to the patient to enable him or her to make a
balanced judgment, remote possibilities need not be disclosed, and the nature
and extent of information to be furnished will be such as is considered “normal
and proper by a body of medical men skilled and experienced in the particular
field.” Subsequently, Supreme Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee30 without
reference to its previous judicial opinion in Samira Kohli emphasized on the
need of doctors to engage with the patients during treatment, especially when
the line of treatment is contested, has serious side effects and alternative
treatments exist, and observed that “[i] n the times to come, litigation may be
based on the theory of lack of informed consent.”
Supreme
Court's Appreciation with Regard to Medical Negligence Liability
According to the Supreme
Court, cases both civil and criminal as well as in Consumer Fora, are often filed
against medical practitioners and hospitals complaining of medical negligence
against doctors, hospitals, or nursing homes, hence the latter would naturally
like to know about their liability. The general principles on this subject have
been lucidly and elaborately explained in the three Judge Bench decisions of
this Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6
SCC 1. However, difficulties arise in the application of those general
principles to specific cases. For instance, in paragraph 41 of the decision, it
was observed that: “The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree
of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither
the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence is what the law
requires.” Now what is reasonable and what is unreasonable is a matter on which
even experts may disagree. Also, they may disagree on what is a high level of
care and what is a low level of care. To give another example, in paragraphs 12
to 16 of Jacob Mathew's case (Supra), it has been stated that simple negligence
may result only in civil liability, but gross negligence or recklessness may
result in criminal liability as well. For civil liability only, damages can be
imposed by the Court but for criminal liability the Doctor can also be sent to
jail (apart from damages that may be imposed on him in a civil suit or by the
Consumer Fora). However, what is simple negligence and what is gross negligence
may be a matter of dispute even among experts. The law, like medicine, is an
inexact science. One cannot predict with certainty an outcome in many cases. It
depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, and also the
personal notions of the Judge who is hearing the case. However, the broad and
general legal principles relating to medical negligence need to be understood.
Before dealing with these principles two things have to be kept in mind:
1. Judges are not experts in
medical science, rather they are laymen. This itself often makes it somewhat
difficult for them to decide cases relating to medical negligence. Moreover,
Judges usually have to rely on the testimonies of other doctors, which may not
be objective in all cases. Since like in all professions and services, doctors
too sometimes have a tendency to support their own colleagues who are charged
with medical negligence. The testimony may also be difficult to understand for
a Judge, particularly in complicated medical matters and
2. a balance has to be struck
in such cases. While doctors who cause death or agony due to medical negligence
should certainly be penalized, it must also be remembered that like all professionals
doctors too can make errors of judgment but if they are punished for this no doctor
can practice his vocation with equanimity. Indiscriminate proceedings and
decisions against doctors are counter productive and are no good for society.
They inhibit the free exercise of judgment by a professional in a particular
situation.
The
reasoning and decision
In the words of the Supreme
Court, the facts of the case reveal that the Respondent was sufferingfrom
chronic renal failure and was undergoing hemodialysis twice a week as
treatment. He was suffering from a high
fever but he refused to get admitted into the hospital despite the advice of
the Appellant. The Respondent was also suffering from a severe urinary tract
infection that could only be treated by Amikacin or Methenamine Mandelate.
Since Methenamine Mandelate cannot be used for patients suffering from renal
failure, an injection of Amikacin was administered. A perusal of the complaint
filed by the Respondent before the National Commission shows that his main
allegation was that he suffered from a hearing impairment due to the negligence
of the Appellant who allegedly prescribed an overdose of Amikacin injections
with no regard for the critical condition of the Respondent who did not warrant
such heavy dosage. The case of the Appellant, however, is that the Complainant
was referred to the Appellant by Dr. F.P. Soonawalla, the renowned Urologist of
Bombay. Dr. Soonawalla is an eminent doctor of international repute and he
would not have ordinarily referred a patient to an incompetent doctor. This is
one factor that goes in favor of the Appellant, though of course it is not
conclusive. After examining the Complainant, the Appellant found that the
Complainant was a patient of chronic renal failure due to bilateral polycystic
kidneys and the Appellant advised hemodialysis twice a week as an out-patient. The
Complainant was also investigated to find a suitable kidney donor. The
Appellant has alleged in his written statement filed before the National
Commission that the Complainant was in a hurry to have a quick kidney
transplant and he was very obstinate, stubborn, and short-tempered. The
Appellant was of the view that the Respondent's infection could only be treated
by an injection of Amikacin, as Methenamine Mandelate could not be used due to
his chronic renal failure. The Respondent's report also established his
resistance to all other antibiotics. In our opinion, it is clear that the
Respondent already had renal failure before the injection of Amikacin. Amikacin
was administered after a test dosage only from June 5, 1991 and at this stage
he did not complain of any side effects and his temperature subsided rapidly.
On June 11, 1991, the Respondent complained to the Appellant of slight tinnitus
or ringing in the ear. The Appellant immediately reviewed the treatment on the
discharge card in possession of the Respondent and also asked his attendant
i.e., his wife, to stop the injection of Amikacin and Cap. Augmantine verbally
and also marked an X on the discharge card in his own handwriting on June 11,
1991 i.e., 3 days after discharge. Hence, as per the direction of the
Appellant, the Respondent should have stopped receiving injections of Amikacin
after June 10, 1991, but on his own he kept taking Amikacin injections. On
perusal of the copies of the papers from the Cash Memo supplied by the
Respondent as per annexure 4, it is in our opinion evident that the Respondent
continued to take the medicine against the advice of the Appellant, and had unilaterally
been getting injected as late as June 17, 1991, i.e., 7 days after he had been
instructed verbally and in writing in the presence of his attendant i.e., his wife
and staff members of the hospital to stop injections of Amikacin/Cap. Augmantine
because of tinnitus as early as June 11, 1991. From the above facts, it is
evident that the Appellant was not to blame in any way and it was the non cooperative
attitude of the Respondent and his continuing with the Amikacin injections even
after June 11, 1991 that was the cause of his ailment, i.e., the impairment of
his hearing. A patient who does not listen to his doctor's advice often has to
face adverse consequences. It is evident from the fact that the Respondent was
already seriously ill before he met the Appellant. There is nothing to show
from the evidence that the Appellant was in any way negligent, rather it
appears that the Appellant did his best to give good treatment to the
Respondent to save his life but the Respondent himself did not cooperate. Several
doctors have been examined by the National Commission and we have read their
evidence, which is on record. Apart from that, there is also the opinion of
Prof. P. Ghosh of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences who had been
nominated by AIIMS as requested by the Commission, which is also on record. The
opinion of Dr. Ghosh was that there were many factors in the case of renal
diseases that cause hearing loss and it is impossible to foretell the
sensitivity of a patient to a drug, thereby making it difficult to assess the
contributions towards toxicity by the other factors involved. He has also
opined that the Amikacin dose of 500 mg twice a day for 14 days prescribed by
the doctor was a life-saving measure and the Appellant did not have any option
but to take this step. Life is more important than saving the function of the
ear. Prof Ghosh was of the view that antibiotics were rightly given on the
report of the sensitivity test that showed the organisms were sensitive to
Amikacin. Hence, the antibiotic was not blindly used on speculation or as a
clinical experiment. In view of the opinion of Prof Ghosh, who is an expert of
the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are clearly of the view that
the Appellant was not guilty of medical negligence but rather wanted to save
the life of the Respondent. The Appellant was faced with a situation where not
only was there kidney failure of the patient, but also urinary tract infection
and blood infection. In this grave situation, which threatened the life of the
patient, the Appellant had to take drastic steps. Even if he prescribed Amikacin
for a longer period than is normally done, he obviously did it to save the life
of the Respondent. We have also seen the evidence from other doctors as well as
the affidavits filed before the National Commission. No doubt some of the
doctors who have deposed in this case have given different opinions, but in
cases relating to allegations of medical negligence, this Court has to exercise
great caution. From these depositions and affidavits it cannot be said that the
Appellant was negligent. In fact, most of the doctors who have deposed or given
their affidavits before the Commission have stated that the Appellant was not
negligent.
We see no reason to disbelieve
the above allegations of the Appellant that on June 11, 1991 he had asked the
Respondent to stop taking Amikacin injections, and in fact this version is
corroborated by the testimony of the Senior Sister Mukta Kolekar. Hence, it was
the Respondent himself who is to blame for having continued Amikacin after June
11, 1991 against the advice of the Appellant. Moreover, in the statement of Dr.
Ghosh before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission it has been
stated that it is by no means established that Amikacin alone can cause deafness.
Dr. Ghosh stated that there are 8 factors that can cause loss of hearing.
Moreover, there are conflicting versions about the deafness of the Respondent.
While the Respondent stated that he became deaf in June 1991, most of the
Doctors who filed affidavits before the Commission have stated that they freely
conversed with him in several meetings much after 21st June and in fact up to
the middle of August 1991.
The National Commission had
sought the assistance of AIIMS to give a report about the allegations of medical
negligence against the Appellant. AIIMS had appointed Dr. Ghosh to investigate
the case and submit a report and Dr. Ghosh submitted a report in favor of the
Appellant. Surprisingly, the Commission has not placed much reliance on the
report of Dr. Ghosh, although he is an outstanding ENT specialist of
international repute. We have carefully perused the judgment of the National Commission
and we regret that we are unable to concur with the views expressed therein.
The Commission, which consists of laymen in the field of medicine, has sought
to substitute its own views over that of medical experts, and has practically
acted as super-specialists in medicine. Moreover, it has practically brushed
aside the evidence of Dr. Ghosh, whose opinion was sought on its own direction,
as well as the affidavits of several other doctors (referred to above) who have
stated that the Appellant acted correctly in the situation he was faced. The
Commission should have realized that different doctors have different
approaches, for instance, some have more radical approaches while some have
more conservative approaches. All doctors cannot be fit into a straight-jacketed
formula and cannot be penalized for departing from that formula. While this
Court has no sympathy for doctors who are negligent, it must also be said that
frivolous complaints against doctors have increased by leaps and bounds in our
country particularly after the medical profession was placed within the purview
of the Consumer Protection Act. To give an example, earlier when a patient who
had a symptom of having a heart attack would come to a doctor, the doctor would
immediately inject him with Morphia or Pethidine injection before sending him
to the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU) because in cases of heart attack time is the
essence of the matter. However, in some cases the patient died before he
reached the hospital. After the medical profession was brought under the
Consumer Protection Act vide Indian Medical Association vs. V.P.
Shantha 1995 (6) SCC 651 doctors who administer the Morphia or Pethidine
injection are often blamed and cases of medical negligence are filed against
them. The result is that many doctors have stopped giving (even as family
physicians) Morphia or Pethidine injections even in emergencies despite the
fact that from the symptoms the doctor honestly thought the patient was having
a heart attack. This was out of fear that if the patient died the doctor would
have to face legal proceedings. Similarly, in cases of head injuries (which are
very common in road side accidents in Delhi and other cities) earlier the
doctor who was first approached would started giving first aid and apply stitches
to stop the bleeding. However, now what is often seen is that doctors out of
fear of facing legal proceedings do not give first aid to the patient, and
instead tell him to proceed to the hospital by which time the patient may develop
other complications. Hence, Courts and Consumer Fora should keep the above
factors in mind when deciding cases related to medical negligence, and not take
a view that would be in fact a disservice to the public. The decision of this
Court in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P.
Shantha (Supra) should not be understood to mean that doctors should be
harassed merely because their treatment was unsuccessful or caused some mishap
which was not necessarily due to negligence. In fact, in the aforementioned
decision, it has been observed that (vide para 22): “In the matter of
professional liability professions differ from other occupations for the reason
that professions operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every
case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond the
professional man's control.”
It may be mentioned that the
All India Institute of Sciences has been doing outstanding research in Stem
Cell Therapy for the last 8 years for treating patients suffering from
paralysis, terminal cardiac condition, parkinsonism, etc., though not yet with
very notable success. This does not mean that the work of Stem Cell Therapy
should stop, otherwise science cannot progress. We, therefore, direct that
whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer
Fora (whether District, State, or National) or by the Criminal Court, before
issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made
the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent
doctor or committee of doctors specialized in the field relating to which the
medical negligence is attributed. Only after that doctor or committee reports that
there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should a notice be issued to
the concerned doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors
who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police
officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within
the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew's case (supra), otherwise the
policemen will themselves have to face legal action. In the present case, the
Appellant was faced with an extremely serious situation. Had the Appellant been
only suffering from renal failure, it is possible that a view could be taken
that the dose prescribed for the Appellant was excessive. However, the
Respondent was not only suffering from renal failure but he was also suffering
from urinary tract infection and blood infection i.e., septicemia, which is blood
poisoning caused by bacteria or a toxin. He also had extremely high urea. In
this extremely serious situation, the Appellant naturally had to take a drastic
measure to attempt to save the life of the Respondent. The situation was
aggravated by the non cooperation of the Respondent who seems to be of an
assertive nature as deposed by the witnesses. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary
remedies. Even assuming that such a high dose of Amikacin would ordinarily lead
to hearing impairment, the Appellant was faced with a situation between the
devil and the deep sea. If he chose to save the life of the patient rather than
his hearing surely he cannot be faulted. The allegation against the Appellant
is that he gave an overdose of the antibiotic. In this connection it may be
mentioned that antibiotics are usually given for a minimum of 5 days, but there
is no upper limit to the number of days for which they should continue and it
all depends on the condition of the patient. Giving a lower dose of the
antibiotic may create other complications because it can cause resistance in
the bacteria to the drug, and then it will be more difficult to treat. With
regard to the impairment of hearing of the Respondent, it may be mentioned that
there is no known antibiotic drug without side effects. Hence, merely because
there was impairment in the hearing of the Respondent that does not mean that
the Appellant was negligent. The Appellant was desperately trying to save the
life of the Respondent, which he succeeded in doing. Life is surely more
important than side effects.
For example many
anti-tubercular drugs (e.g., Streptomycin) can cause impairment of hearing.
Does this mean that TB patients should be allowed to die and not be given the
anti-tubercular drug because it impairs hearing? Surely the answer will be
negative. The courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science and
must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. It is true that
the medical profession has to an extent become commercialized and there are
many doctors who depart from their Hippocratic oath for their selfish ends of
making money. However, the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or
branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples.
It must be remembered that sometimes despite their best efforts the treatment
of a doctor fails. For instance, sometimes despite the best effort of a
surgeon, the patient dies. That does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon
must be held to be guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong
evidence to suggest that he is. On the facts of this particular case, we are of
the opinion that the Appellant was not guilty of medical negligence.
Advisory
to Doctors and Safeguards in Criminal Prosecution by Supreme Court
Supreme Court in one case33 noted broadly
the precautions which ought to be taken, and the same are reproduced herein
below:
“Precautions which
doctors/hospitals/nursing homes should take:
a. Current practices,
infrastructure, paramedical and other staff, hygiene, and sterility should be observed
strictly. Thus, in Sarwat Ali Khan v. Prof. R. Gogi (OP No. 181 of 1997 decided
on July 18, 2007 [NC]) the facts were that out of 52 cataract operations
performed between September 26, 1995, and September 28, 1995, in an eye
hospital, 14 persons lost their vision in the operated eye. An enquiry revealed
that in the operation theater, two autoclaves were not working properly. This
equipment is absolutely necessary to carry out sterilization of instruments,
cotton, pads, linen, etc., and the damage occurred because of its absence in working
condition. The doctors were held liable
b. No prescription should
ordinarily be given without actual examination. The tendency to give prescription
over the telephone, except in an acute emergency, should be avoided
c. A doctor should not merely
go by the version of the patient regarding his symptoms but should also make
his own analysis including tests and investigations where necessary
d. A doctor should not
experiment unless necessary and even then he should ordinarily get a written
consent from the patient
e. An expert should be
consulted in case of any doubt. Thus, in Indrani Bhattacharjee (OP No. 233 of
1996 decided on 9-8-2007 [NC]), the patient was diagnosed as having 'mild lateral
wall ischemia.’ The doctor prescribed medicine for gastroenteritis but he
expired. It was held that the doctor was negligent as he should have advised
consulting a cardiologist in writingf. Full record of the diagnosis, treatment,
etc., should be maintained.”
The above are in the nature of
broad advisory.
Keeping in the view the rise
in criminal prosecution of doctors, which is both embarrassing and harassing
for them, and to protect them from frivolous and unjust prosecutions Supreme
Court laid certain binding guidelines till statutory rules or instructions by
the government in consultation with
MCI are issued, which are as
follows: 34
1. Private complaint may not
be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the
court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor
2. Investigation officer
should obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a
doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who
can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying
Bolam test to the facts collected in the investigation
3. Doctor may not be arrested
in a routine manner unless the arrest is necessary for furthering the
investigation or for collecting the evidence or if the investigation officer is
satisfied that doctor may flee.
The necessity for obtaining
independent medical opinion was insisted upon considering that the knowledge of
medical science to determine whether the acts of medical professional amounts
to negligent act within the domain of criminal law could not be presumed. This
requirement was subsequently sought to be made a necessity by the Supreme Court
even for initiating the action seeking imposition of civil penalties but was
done away with thereafter for civil actions.
CONCLUSION
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markendeya Katju has done yeoman service for society by rendering this judgment. On one hand, it sets at rest the speculative nature of our judicial adjudication of medical negligence liability and on the other, it abundantly clarifies that unless there is prima facie evidence indicating medical negligence, notice either to a doctor or hospital cannot be issued. At the same time, the core essence of the judgment makes it very clear that there cannot be an assumption that doctors cannot be negligent while rendering care and treatment. I think this timely intervention should be disseminated at a popular level so that the mandated Supreme Court's prescription will be observed more in practice than in breach.
Comments
Post a Comment