Mere Error In Judgment Of Diagnosis Not Medical Negligence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed challenge to a civil court's order which had rejected a couple's suit seeking compensation for alleged “medical negligence” by a doctor resulting in the death of their child.

The high court said that in the "facts of the case", and in the absence of any cogent material, a mere error in judgment of diagnosis cannot be termed as medical negligence. 

A single judge bench Justice Deven M Desai in its order observed “In such set of facts, when the patient had taken treatment from various doctors and from various hospital and in absence of any cogent material in proving medical negligence on the part of the defendant No.1 (doctor) and mere an error in judgment in diagnosis of ailment cannot be said to be the medical negligence.This view is fortified by various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court”.

The court further said that to establish medical negligence it has to be proved that the medical practitioner was negligent in discharging their duties and the line of treatment adopted was not as per the prescribed adopted medical practise. 

In view of the “facts and circumstances of the case”, the high court said that the plaintiffs–appellant parents before the high court–had not been able to establish the allegations of negligence by the doctor.

“The learned trial Court has not committed any error in arriving at a conclusion which is based on medical evidence that defendant No.1 has not acted in a negligent manner. Resultantly, the First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs,” the high court said.

Background

The high court passed the order in an appeal moved by the parents of a two year old boy challenging the dismissal of their suit for recovery by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Before the civil court, the parents in their suit had sought compensation of Rs 5,00,000 plus interest of 18%, alleging medical negligence by the doctor resulting in the death of their son in January 1987. The suit was filed against various respondents–including the doctor as well as an insurance company. 

The parents had claimed that the doctor had “misdiagnosed” their child with tuberculosis (TB) when the child actually had renal calculus (kidney stones). 

Findings

Referring to the deposition of the respondent doctor the high court said that it emerged that the child was given three medicines (Tab. Isonex, Micabittol and Syrup R.Cin) for T.B.

However, the court said, it was later found that the child had kidney stones. The high court said that except for the respondent doctor's deposition the parents had not been able to "extract any adverse fact which attributes the negligence" on the doctor's part resulting in the child's death.

The court thereafter said that from the facts placed before it, it appeared to be a "case of error in judgment". The high court further said that it was on the parents to establish by leading "cogent and convincing medical evidence" that their child's death was because of the "side effect of dozes of medicines which were prescribed".

"None of the treating doctors of the child has opined by relying upon medical literature that the medicines which were prescribed by defendant No.1, is the ultimate cause of death of the child. In establishing medical negligence, there has to be conclusive medical evidence which can establish the fact that medical practitioner has remained negligent in discharging his / her duties and the line of treatment which was adopted in treating the patient was not as per the prescribed adopted medical practise," the high court said. 

The court observed that none of the medical practitioners who had examined the child had deposed that there is a "nexus of side effects" of the three medicines prescribed and the cause of death.

"As observed earlier, it is not the case of plaintiffs that because of side effects of aforesaid three medicines, their son has expired. The side effects, as per the say of Defendant No.1 is not fatal to the patient," the court said. 

It thereafter went on to dismiss the parents appeal. 

Case title: X v Y and Others

LL Citation: 2024 livelaw (Guj) 133

Click Here To Download Order