Medical Negligence – Consumer Protection – Liability of doctors – Demise of husband of appellant no.1 pursuant to kidney transplantation – Allegation that the cause of death was postoperative medical negligence – Complaint before National Consumer Commission dismissed – Held: 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 practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment – 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 – On facts, no evidence given by appellants to show that it was a case of post-operative medical negligence – All post operative medical care protocol available at the command of the respondents was administered to the patient – Still his physical condition deteriorated and finally he could not be saved – Merely because the patient could not be saved, it cannot be considered to be a case of post operative medical Negligence – Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
Words and Phrases – Word “negligence” – Meaning of. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctors can provide their best medical assistance available at their command but merely because they could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence despite the fact that in the present case, medical protocol administered by them was duly supported by the two medical experts of the field who appeared on behalf of the respondents, and nothing elicits from the cross-examination made by the appellants. [Para 21] [823-F-H]
2. It clearly emerges from the exposition of law that 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. [Para 27][828-D-F]
3. The term “negligence” has no defined boundaries and if any medical negligence is there, whether it is pre or post-operative medical care or in the follow-up care, at any point of time by the treating doctors or anyone else, it is always open to be considered by the Courts/Commission taking note of the exposition of law laid down by this Court and each case has to be examined on its own merits in accordance with law. [Para 28][828-G]
4. Complaints have been made with regard to the postoperative assistance / follow up care, but from the deposition of two witnesses which has come on record, there was a complaint made by the patient of pain in his left forearm while he was being discharged on 24.11.1995 after remaining in ICU for 12 days, but he was called upon to continue as outdoor patient and on all the later occasions, even as per the case sheet of the patient, doctors have treated the patient to the best of their medical knowledge and administered the best medical care which was possible. Although the complaint of the patient which remained persistent could not be ruled out despite medically approved drugs being administered to him and if the patient could not be finally saved, that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence, as is being tried to be projected by the appellants on the basis of the material placed on record. [Para 30][829-C-E]
5. The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis. At the same time, no evidence has come on record at the behest of the appellants which, in any manner, could demonstrate that it was a case of post-operative medical negligence or follow up care on the part of treating doctors and both the doctors who have recorded their statements on behalf of the appellants, are not expert doctors in the field of kidney transplantation. The respondents – OP Nos.1, 2 and 5 are indeed expert doctors and qualified Nephrologists and this fact has been admitted by the appellants that the patient was under treatment of the best medical professionals and qualified Nephrologists, but those treating doctors could not save the patient, that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence which was the main grievance of the appellants before the Commission. [Paras 31, 32][829-F-G; 830-A-B]
6. Taking note of the fact that treating doctors, OP Nos.1, 2 and 5 are medical experts in the field of nephrology and so far as OP No.6 hospital where the patient was admitted for transplantation was duly registered under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and all post operative medical care protocol available at the command of the respondents was administered to the patient, still his physical condition deteriorated and finally he could not be saved, which is really unfortunate, but there cannot be a legal recourse to what is being acceptable to the destiny. The 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. In consequence thereof, the judgment of the Commission does not call for any interference by the Court. [Paras 33, 34][830-C-E]
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (2005) 6 SCC 1 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307; Kusum Sharma and Others v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 480 : [2010] 2 SCR 685 and Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh and Others (2021) 10 SCC 291 – relied on.
Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.