In a recent order, the Supreme Court said that a doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway just because a patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed. The court said 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.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held that 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 top court has 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.
"Deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of the fact that the surgery performed or the treatment given to the patient was not proper or inappropriate or that there was some negligence in administering the same. In case of surgery or such treatment it is not necessary that in every case the condition of the patient would improve and the surgery is successful to the satisfaction of the patient," the verdict read.
The court added that that it is very much possible that in some rare cases complications of such nature arise but that by itself does not establish any actionable negligence on part of the medical expert.
“It is well recognised 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 read.
The top court said that when reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
"In a celebrated and very often cited decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division), it was observed that a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with the acceptable norms of practice unless there is evidence of a medical body of skilled persons in the field opining that the accepted principles/procedure were not followed. The test so laid down popularly came to be known as Bolam’s test and stands approved by the Supreme Court..." the judgment said.
The case came up when a father filed a consumer complaint against PGI Chandigarh and a doctor, alleging that his minor son's eye vision deteriorated post-surgery.
The doctor and the hospital had moved the top court after the NCDRC accepted the complainant's claim based on the medical reports stating that post-surgery, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated in his child.
Setting aside the NCDRC's finding on an appeal filed by the Doctor and Hospital, the top 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.