The Supreme Court opined in the case of Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh that every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered as death due to medical negligence unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect. It is necessary that the hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances.
Brief Facts
The appellants before the Supreme Court challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which held the appellants guilty of medical negligence. The Respondent’s wife died while her right kidney was being operated on. Both her kidneys were infected and she was adviced to undergo surgery. The left kidney was to be operated on in the beginning, followed by surgery in her right kidney. The operation in her left kidney was successful and therefore she was approved for the operation in her right kidney, however, her condition deteriorated and as a result, he expired.
Her husband filed a claim for medical negligence, and the same was successful before the NCDRC. The Doctors involved in the operation and the Hospital thus filed an appeal before the Supreme Court impugning the decision of the NCDRC.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court opined that every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered as death due to medical negligence unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect. It is necessary that the hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in unfortunate cases, though death may occur and if it is alleged to be due to medical negligence and a claim in that regard is made, it is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at a conclusion.
The Court further stated that it is clear 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.
It was thus held that in the above circumstance when there was no medical evidence available before the NCDRC on the crucial medical aspect which required such opinion, the mere reliance placed on the magisterial enquiry would not be sufficient.
Held
The Court held that if all these aspects are kept in view, the correctness or otherwise of the line of treatment and the decision to conduct the operation and the method followed were all required to be considered in the background of the medical evidence in the particular facts of this case.
CASE DETAILS
CASE NAME: DR. HARISH KUMAR KHURANA V. JOGINDER SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 07, 2021
BENCH: JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA AND JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
