INTRODUCTION
Today, I will discuss the case of Dr. Harish
Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 673,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the basic principles that a Court
ought to keep in mind while deciding cases relating to medical negligence.
The facts of the case are not relevant for the
purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed. To read my
earlier posts in relation to medical negligence, you may peruse the links
provided in the description below.
Judicial Interpretation of Medical Negligence in India
Medical Negligence and Consumer Disputes
The Case of Dr. Kunal Saha - Part I
The Case of Dr. Kunal Saha - Part II
Now, let us understand the pertinent observations
by the Court in relation to medical negligence.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court cited the cases of Jacob
Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, and Martin F.D'Souza
v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1, wherein it was held that “the
true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of
a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no
doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of, if acting with ordinary care”
and “simply because the patient has not favourably responded to a
treatment given by doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held
straight away liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of Res
Ipsa Loquitor.” Res Ipsa Loquitor is a Latin phrase that means that a
thing speaks for itself.
Secondly, the Court cited the case of V.
Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513, wherein
it was held that before forming the opinion that a medical professional is
negligent, expert evidence is necessary. And “in a case where negligence
is evident, the principles of res ipsa loquitur operates” and in such scenario,
the Complainant does not have to prove anything rather the medical professional
is required to establish that he has exercised due care.
Thirdly, the Court explained that “in every
case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery,
it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent.
To indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else
appropriate medical evidence should be tendered.”
Fourthly, the Court observed that “the two
aspects which are the foundation for allegation of negligence is that no care
was taken despite the observation of the medical professional” and whether
the patient's life or health condition was exposed to risk by advising and
preparing in a callous manner ignoring the established principles of medical
sciences and medical practice.
Fifthly, the Court also noted that in cases where
informed consent is taken, the patient cannot later on contend that he/she has
not been informed or is not aware about the risks of the medical procedure or
treatment.
And lastly, the Court opined that even if evidence
is available against the medical professional, such evidence must be duly
tested by the Courts on statutory anvils or through cross-examination or through
interrogatories on the medical aspects etc. and usually, mere legal principles
and general standard of assessment are not sufficient to implicate a medical
professional.
Those were the observations by the Courts. So,
what are my concluding remarks?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Medical Negligence is a specialized subject that
requires deep knowledge of the medical field. The Supreme Court rightly stated
that mere legal principles and general standards of assessment could never be
sufficient to establish medical negligence. Presence of Expert Evidence is
imperative in such cases. Further, a doctor can do only so much. He is a not a
god who could successfully treat each and every patient without any
complications. Medical Sciences is not an absolute subject. The doctors take
various decisions and judgments while treating a patient. The Court rightly
stated that such decisions and professional judgments are to be seen from the
lens of an expert and not that of a common man.
No comments:
Post a Comment