Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Medical practitioner can only be held liable where his conduct fell below that of the standards of reasonably competent practitioner in his field MANU/SC/0515/2022 - (20 Apr 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Vs. DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The demise of husband of Appellant no.1 after his long illness has resulted in initiation of the legal proceedings at the instance of Appellant no.1 along with her children on a bona fide belief that the cause of death of her late husband was post operative medical negligence and follow-up care. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Commission), after appreciating the material on record, including the evidence led by the parties, held that it was not a case of post operative medical negligence as being alleged by the Appellants and dismissed the complaint which is the subject matter of present appeal filed at the instance of the Appellants under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act). 
The Appellants contended that although the kidney transplantation of the patient was successful but the Respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duty of care and medical protocols subsumed thereunder, including follow up care which according to the Appellants is a medical negligence on the part of the Respondents in extending treatment to the patient and being the case of post operative negligence, they have lost their patient. 
The court observed that 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. 
The court further observed that 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 of which a detailed reference has been made and each case has to be examined on its own merits in accordance with law. 
So far as present case is concerned, the court found that the treating doctors are academically sound and experts in the field of kidney transplantation and their medical expertise in the field of nephrology and surgery in kidney transplantation has not been doubted by the Appellants. It is also not the case of the Appellants that the patient was not medically treated by the well-qualified doctors at the time when kidney transplant surgery was undertaken. 
Complaints have been made with regard to the post-operative 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 after remaining in ICU for 12 days, but he was called upon to continue as outdoor patient and on all the later occasions. 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. 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. 
Thus, no reasons are available to differ with the view taken by Consumer Courts. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Complaint, Medical Negligence, post operative care</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>