Back
MARKANDEY KATJU, R.M.LODHA
Martin F. D’Souza – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ishfaq – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that in cases of medical negligence, the standard of care is determined by the Bolam test, which requires that the doctor exercise the ordinary skill and reasonable care expected of a competent professional in the same field. The court emphasizes that negligence must be established by showing that the doctor's conduct fell below this standard, considering the circumstances and the knowledge available at the time. It further clarifies that simple negligence results in civil liability, whereas gross negligence or recklessness can lead to criminal liability. The decision underscores the importance of expert opinion in assessing medical conduct and highlights that a doctor’s actions aimed at saving a life, even if resulting in adverse effects, are not necessarily negligent if they adhere to accepted medical practices. The overall principle is that courts and consumer forums should exercise caution and rely on expert medical evidence before attributing negligence, and that a mere unsuccessful treatment or adverse outcome does not automatically imply negligence.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. —
1. This appeal against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 22.3.2002 has been filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are narrated below :
4. In March 1991, the respondent who was suffering from chronic renal failure was referred by the Director, Health Services to the Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai for the purpose of a kidney transplant.
5. On or about 24.4.1991, the respondent reached Nanavati Hospital, Bombay and was under the treatment of the appellant Doctor. At that stage, the respondent was undergoing haemodialysis twice a week on account of chronic renal failure. Investigations were underway to find a suitable donor. The respondent wanted to be operated by Dr. Sonawala alone who was out of India from 1.6.1991 to 1.7.1991.
6. On 20.5.1991, the respondent approached the appellant Doctor. At the time, the respondent, who was suffering from high fever, did not want to be admitted to the Hospital despite the advice of the appellant. Hence, a broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed to him.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
