Doctors Cannot Be Held Liable For Medical Negligence Merely Because They Could Not Save The Patient : Supreme Court

 The Supreme Court observed that merely because doctors could not save the patient, he/she cannot be held liable for medical negligence.

"The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis" the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.

The court added that the liability would only come if (a) either a person (doctor) did not possess the requisite skills which he professed to have possessed; or (b) he did not exercise with reasonable competence in given case the skill which he did possess.

In this case, a woman approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging that her husband died on account of post operative medical negligence. She attributed negligence on the part of the treating doctors and the hospital and claimed special damages/ general damages for a total sum of Rs.95,16,174.33/-. The commission dismissed the complaint holding that merely because the expert team of doctors could not save him after his prolonged illness and he died on 3rd February, 1996 that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench, agreed with the conclusion of the Commission that in post operative or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the Hospital or doctors. The court, referring to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, made the following observations:

No doctor would assure a full recovery in every case

Thus, any individual approaching such a skilled person would have a reasonable expectation under the duty of care and caution but there could be no assurance of the result. No doctor would assure a full recovery in every case. At the relevant time, only assurance given by implication is that he possessed the requisite skills in the branch of the profession and while undertaking the performance of his task, he would exercise his skills to the best of his ability and with reasonable competence. Thus, the liability would only come if (a) either a person (doctor) did not possess the requisite skills which he professed to have possessed; or (b) he did not exercise with reasonable competence in given case the skill which he did possess. It was held to be necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch in which he practices. It was held that simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of the medical professional. 

Medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

a medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment. There could be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command. At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

Case details

Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri vs Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391 | CA 6507 OF 2009 | 20 April 2022

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka

 Headnotes

Medical Negligence - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another - He/she would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field - Merely because he/she could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of medical negligence - The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis. [ Referred to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1; Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others (2010) 3 SCC 480 ; Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh and Others (2021) 10 SCC 291 ] (Para 21-27, 31)

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - The hospitals where the procedure of transplantation is undertaken are to be registered in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1994, but for postoperative care, particularly after the patient being discharged from the hospital where the procedure of transplantation has taken place, we have not come across any provision under the Act, 1994 where such hospitals are required to be registered under the Act 1994. (Para 35)

Summary - Appeal against NCDRC which dismissed appellant's complaint of medical negligence - Dismissed - Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining the complaint filed by the appellants. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment