The Supreme Court recently comprising of a division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka while upholding the NCDRC order of exonerating a team of expert doctors from allegations of negligence in providing post-operative care, clarified that merely because the doctors fail to save the patient, medical negligence cannot be attributed to them. (Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri vs Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi)
The bench said: "The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis."
The bench added 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.
Facts of the case
The present appeal was filed by Dr Chanda Rani Akhouri and others challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order, rejecting their claim for damages to the tune of Rs 95.16 lakh against a nursing home and its doctors for post-operative negligence, resulting in the death of Akhouri's husband within months after kidney transplant in 1995.
Contention of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the patient was consistently complaining after he being successfully operated on 12th November, 1995 and shifted to the ICU for pain in the left forearm where intravenous drugs were injected to him and when the patient was attended by OP No.1 for review, he reiterated his complaint of pain in the left forearm and still he was discharged from the hospital on 24th November, 1995.
The Commission, according to the counsel, although noticed these facts but has not at all appreciated the evidence on record.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents, while supporting the findings recorded by the Commission under the impugned judgment, submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that there was any slackness on the part of the team of the doctors while the patient was being operated/underwent kidney transplant on 12th November, 1995 which was admittedly successfully performed by the qualified team of doctors headed by OP No.1 and OP No.5 and thereafter the patient was shifted to ICU for post operative treatment and even thereafter he was completely under medical supervision and got discharged on 24th November, 1995 with further instructions that he should remain as an outdoor patient until the doctors advise him to leave the city and the reason was that as an outdoor patient, dressing of wounds at the place of incision is always to be taken proper care.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset referred to the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [(2005) 6 SCC 1] wherein it was opined that in case of medical negligence the liability would only come if either a person (doctor) did not possess the requisite skills which he professed to have possessed or he did not exercise with reasonable competence in given case the skill which he did possess.
The bench further referred to the case of Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh and Others[(2021) 10 SCC 291] wherein it was held sufficient material on medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at a conclusion that the death is due to medical negligence. Even death of a patient cannot, on the face of it, be considered to be medical negligence.
The bench opining that a medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field, stressed on the aspect 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.
The bench remarked, "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."
The bench taking note of the facts of the case stated that the treating doctors are academically sound and experts in the field of kidney transplantation. It was also mentioned that there was a complaint made by the patient of pain in his left forearm while he was being discharged, 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 had treated the patient to the best of their medical knowledge and administered the best medical care which was possible.
The Bench noted, “ 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…”
According to the Court, the respondents-doctors are experts and qualified Nephrologists and this fact had 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 Naveen Kant, 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.
It also said 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 bench, "Merely because they are doctors by profession, what is being expressed by both of them in the affidavits filed before the Commission would not be considered to be an opinion of experts."
The bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "We realize the pain of losing her husband and the trauma she has suffered, but that cannot translate into a legal remedy. Accordingly, we do not find any fault in the reasoning of the Commission, as a result, the appeal is without substance and deserves to be dismissed.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
