Doctor Not Liable For Negligence If Chosen Treatment Recognized As Sound Medical Practice: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that doctors are not liable for medical negligence if the disputed treatment is recognized as sound medical practice. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant experienced mild swelling in her right eye and sought treatment from a doctor/op 1, who referred her to a specialist/op 2....
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that doctors are not liable for medical negligence if the disputed treatment is recognized as sound medical practice.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant experienced mild swelling in her right eye and sought treatment from a doctor/op 1, who referred her to a specialist/op 2. The specialist prescribed Pred-Forte drops for three months, but the condition worsened. The prescription was changed, but after another three months, the vision continued to deteriorate. A new doctor diagnosed cataracts in both eyes, attributing them to prolonged use of the medication. The complainant later met with the initial doctor, who confirmed the link between the medication and cataracts. Distressed, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission, which dismissed the Complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant appealed before the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh, which allowed the complaint. It directed the doctor and the specialist to pay the complainant Rs. 50,000 towards cost of the case and Rs.2 lakhs towards mental torture, and depression. Consequently, the doctor filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The doctor denied treating the complainant and stated that the Specialist handled all the treatment, so he wasn't responsible for any alleged negligence. Moreover, the specialist mentioned that during the complainant's visit in 2014, he prescribed Pataday and Pred-Forte and advised against wearing spectacles. On her next visit, Pred-Forte was stopped, but Pataday continued. After some improvement in 2015, the specialist prescribed oral steroids and advised against spectacles and lenses. The complainant continued lenses and medication without consulting the Specialist. The specialist denied negligence, stating he followed professional standards.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complainant initially visited OP 1, who referred her to OP 2. In M.A. Biviji v. Sunita & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931, the Court outlined that medical negligence requires proving a duty of care, a breach, and resulting harm. A doctor is not liable for negligence if the chosen treatment is recognized as sound medical practice, even if it doesn't produce the desired result. The Court also clarified that failing to take extraordinary precautions is not negligence if ordinary precautions are taken, as seen in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. The Commission found that the specialist prescribed medications with care, including advising against contact lens use. The prescription aligned with standard practices. In C.P. Sreekumar v. S. Ramanujam, the Court noted that the complainant must provide strong evidence to prove negligence. Here, the complainant's claim lacked evidence to support that the medication was prescribed for three months, as argued by the District Forum. The National Commission observed that the State Commission's conclusion was deemed unsustainable. It was held that the complainant should have contacted the doctor if they experienced adverse effects. Thus, the commission ruled that there was no medical negligence, and the complaint was dismissed, overturning the State Commission's order.
Case Title: R. Harish Gupta Vs. Kumari Kritika
Case Number: R.P. No. 3005/2023