In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order that held a doctor liable for medical negligence for not performing a repeat eye surgery.
The Supreme Court emphasized that complications or unsuccessful outcomes do not automatically indicate negligence. In order to prove negligence, clear evidence must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from accepted medical practices.
The case involved a 6 year old patient who underwent surgery for ptosis at the PGI, Chandigarh in 1996. The patient’s condition worsened post-surgery and the family has alleged negligence and has sought compensation. The State Commission initially dismissed the claim due to insufficient evidence, the NCDRC later overturned this decision, holding the doctor and PGI jointly liable and awarding Rs. 3,00,000 in compensation and Rs. 50,000 in costs with 6% interest, the doctor and PGI filed an appeal.
Supreme Court’s Findings:
Bolam Test Reaffirmed: The ruling applied the “Bolam test”, confirming that a doctor is liable only if lacking the requisite skill or failing to apply reasonable care in treatment.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur: The Court rejected the application of this doctrine in the case, underscoring that poor results alone don’t indicate negligence. Clear evidence showing a deviation from standard medical practices is essential.
Expert testimony is crucial: Establishing negligence requires expert testimony to demonstrate a deviation from accepted medical standards.
Medical professionals across the country welcomed the ruling, expressing hope to bring an end to frivolous negligence cases.
Dr. MC Misra, former AIIMS director, noted, “Outcomes can vary even with due diligence. This judgment protects doctors against unjust litigation.”
Dr. K Srinath Reddy, founder of the Public Health Foundation of India, highlighted the importance of distinguishing between intentional malpractice and unintended adverse consequences of correctly administered care.
This judgment provides greater clarity on medical negligence and offers increased protection for doctors against unwarranted allegations. It highlights the need for thorough investigation and expert testimony to prove negligence, ensuring that healthcare professionals are held accountable only when there is clear evidence of a breach of duty.
