The Karnataka High Court has came to the rescue of Medical Practioners and suggested that there need to be laws in place to prevent Medical Professionals from phony legal actions just like public servants are protected against bonafide errors in their action.
The single-Judge Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while reflecting on such actions, stated that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives.
The Court futher noted that 'Compensation Culture' which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient.
"Courts have been nowadays observing that an unscrupulous section of the people are prone to use the slightest opportunity to sue the doctors and hospitals, in the hope of making fast buck; the motivation of people bringing actions for medical negligence are more complicated: some sue for money; others sue for getting an acceptance of guilt; some others do it to ensure that errors would not be repeated."
The Court opined that a large chunk of cases does not involve bonafide claims, cannot be much disputed.
"The 'compensation culture' be it truth or a myth in varying degrees, has given rise to risk aversion; medical professionals having a complaint made against them gather an impression that there is an unjustifiable attack on their professional integrity and reputation; this may lead to a defensive response of the medicos ultimately resulting into enormous cost escalation in medical services; if the public servants can be legally protected for the bonafide errors in their action, there is no reason to extend for not extending such a protection to the medical professionals."
Dealing with a case, wherein the Karnataka Medical Council had, by its order, issued a warning to petitioner-doctor for the alleged occupational lapse, namely some procedural breach in accomplishing angioplasty was challenged, the High Court noted that medical field is still in a fluid state.
"Even if it is shown that a drug or a procedure did cause an injury, it is difficult to ascertain whether this is because of the drug or the procedure; for example, it might be that the drug or the procedure is not defective if it provides a cure for the vast majority of people, although it has undesirable consequences for a small number of people; if a patient is of the unlucky few, there will be difficulty in concluding that the drug or the procedure was actionably defective; this is only to highlight the uncertain causation obtaining in the realm of medical liability."
The Court stated that the above aspect ought to have animated the decision making process that culminated into the impugned order of penalty. However, that having not happened, the impugned order suffers from another legal infirmity, the Court observed.
"The patient had some significant problem with Cardio Vascular Vein since long and therefore, she had undergone angiogram at the hands of the petitioner. However, the medical records including the impugned order prima facie show that the cause of death is the serious bacterial infection later contracted, there is huge time gap between accomplishment of angioplasty by the petitioner and the demise of the patient; there is nothing on record to show that the alleged deficiency in professional service accelerated the process of health deterioration that eventually resulted into her death."
It held, "Some positive evidentiary material was necessary to eliminate the possible nova causa interveniens. Therefore, there is no reasonable connect or nexus between the medical procedure done by the petitioner and death of the patient."
The Court also noted that it is said the realm of medicine is an ever growing branch of uncertain knowledge and as a host of un-assessable factors entering the fray of diagnosis & treatment; the advancement of science & technology has to some extent reduced the level of such uncertainty and enhanced the degree of probability, is also true.
Making case for prevention of medical officers, the Court noted that medical and paramedical professionals are inevitable for a healthy society and highlighting their importance, mentioned Vedic literature which wholly lauds them. The Court gave the recent example, their service during the global pandemic.
"During COVID pandemic, how the doctors and paramedics served our society does not fade away from the public memory; society has to gratefully appreciate the valuable services rendered by the medicos; however, at times, being the victims, the medicos are made to apologize to the attackers and this led to the State enacting the Prevention of Violence Against Doctors, Medical Professionals and Medical Institutions Act, 2018."
The Court added that the doctors' is a profession wherein service ought to be the motto and not the profit; as any professionals, they too are not immuned from legal action for medical negligence, as observed by the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors, 1995 Latest Caselaw 657 SC
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
Sheetal Joon
