Negligence – Medical negligence – Complainants are father and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, upon examination of the records, concluded that the complainants failed to establish any negligence or carelessness on part of the doctor – However, the NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation – Correctness:
Held: It is found that doctor was a competent and a skilled doctor possessing requisite qualification to perform PTOSIS surgery and to administer the requisite treatment and that he had followed the accepted mode of practice in performing the surgery and that there was no material to establish any overt act or omission to prove negligence on his part – No evidence was adduced to prove that he had not exercised sufficient care or has failed to exercise due skill in performing the surgery – It is settled that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence – The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that doctor or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence – No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by doctor was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties – In other words, 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 – Thus, the judgment and order of the NCDRC is hereby set aside and that of the State Commission is restored. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 20]
Negligence – Medical Negligence – Actionable negligence – Three constituents:
Held: It is well recognized 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. [Para 14]
Negligence – Medical Negligence – When a medical professional may be held liable for negligence:
Held: A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment – In the instant case, none of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that appellant had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.