INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Bombay
Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal and Others, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 1149, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of
Res Ipsa Loquitur, that literally means that ‘the thing speaks for
itself’, in the context of Medical Negligence.
MEANING
Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, explains Res
Ipsa Loquitur as “the doctrine providing that, in some circumstances,
the mere fact of an accident’s occurrence raises an inference of negligence so
as to establish a prima facie case.”
Thus, whenever an accident or an injury occurs,
the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur may come into play to demonstrate that
the nature or the manner of the injury or the accident raises a presumption of
negligence against the wrongdoer. In cases of medical negligence, this doctrine
is particularly helpful as the Court may apply the same to ascertain prima
facie guilt of an accused person or a medical professional or a medical
professional or a medical establishment, in relation to performance of any
surgery or administration of a particular treatment. In order to understand this
in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court noted that “simply
because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor
or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightaway liable for
medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. No sensible
professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result
in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional
would be at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse.”
Secondly, the Court discussed the two important
lines of approach in regard to the application and effect of the maxim res
ipsa loquitur: -
a. The maxim operates as an exception to the
general rule of evidence that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is
on the plaintiff or the one who alleges it.
b. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is only an
aid in the evaluation of evidence and does not lead to a mandatory presumption
against the defendant or the wrongdoer. It is merely a permissive inference
that is a means of estimating logical probability from the circumstances of the
accident.
Thirdly, the Court also stated that “when a
patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor
for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for
it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of
the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every
case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalised for losing a
case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions.”
And lastly, the Court opined that “Res ipsa
loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law,
specially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in
actions relating to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service for determining
per se the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsa
loquitur has, if at all, a limited application in trial on a charge of criminal
negligence.”
Thus, upon cumulative consideration of the
afore-stated legal juxtaposition, it was held 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. The negligence alleged should
be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made
applicable and not based on perception.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it could be said that res ipsa
loquitur has limited applicability in medical jurisprudence and it is only
in miniscule number of cases where the level of negligence is so apparent that no
other inference except guilt of the accused could be drawn, can the doctrine be
pressed into service. In all other cases, the allegations against a medical
professional must be supported by concordant evidence failing which no case
could be made out on the basis of res ipsa loquitur alone.
Therefore, I hope that the meaning and the nature
of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment