Doctor Following Accepted Medical Practices Not Liable For Complications That Arise Post-Surgery : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court held that a Doctor who follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of duties would not be liable for the patient's post-surgery complications. “In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor...
Recently, the Supreme Court held that a Doctor who follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of duties would not be liable for the patient's post-surgery complications.
“In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.
The Court clarified that so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of his duties, no liability for medical negligence could be imposed on him.
“It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.”, the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal said.
The case relates to the lodging of the consumer complaint by the father against the Doctor and PGI, Chandigarh alleging that his minor son's eye vision deteriorated post-surgery. The complainant's claim was based on the medical records kept by the hospital which recorded that at the pre-surgery stage, his son's eye vision was 6/9 which fell to 6/18 in both eyes at the post-surgery stage making his son suffer from double vision.
The State Commission rejected the complainant's claims, however, the NCDRC accepted the complainant's claim based on the medical reports stating that post-surgery, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated from moderate to severe.
Setting aside the NCDRC's finding on an appeal filed by the Doctor and Hospital, the Court observed that the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence unless the complainant proves that the doctor failed to exercise the skills possessed by him while discharging his duties.
“A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him.”, the court said.
Applying the famous Bolam Test propounded in the celebrated case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee in the present case [which was first time recognized in the Case of Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another (2005)], the court observed that that “doctor was a competent and a skilled doctor possessing requisite qualification to perform PTOSIS surgery and to administer the requisite treatment and that he had followed the accepted mode of practice in performing the surgery and that there was no material to establish any overt act or omission to prove negligence on his part.”
The Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew held that a medical professional is liable for negligence if lacking the necessary skill or fails to apply it competently. In this case, the complainant did not present evidence showing that Doctor or PGI lacked or misapplied their expertise, nor was there testimony from an expert body to prove that Dr. Sud did not exercise his skills adequately. Thus, no negligence could be established.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: NEERAJ SUD AND ANR. VERSUS JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2012
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863