Supreme Court on Medical Negligence

 

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.