Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. - Appellants
VERSUS
Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).6507 of 2009
Decided on : 20-04-2022
(A) Torts – Medical Negligence – 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 – In practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment – There could be genuine difference of opinion – However, while adopting a course of treatment, duty cast upon medical practitioner is that he must ensure that medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command – At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field – Term “negligence” has no defined boundaries and if any medical negligence is there, whether it is pre or post-operative medical care or in follow-up care, at any point of time by treating doctors or anyone else, it is always open to be considered by Courts/Commission taking note of exposition of law laid down by Apex Court. (Paras 27 and 28)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Medical negligence – Death of patient due to post operative medical negligence – Complaint dismissed by National Commission – Respondent Doctors had disclosed their qualifications and their medical expertise in field of nephrology and surgery in kidney transplantation has not been doubted by appellants – It is also not the case of appellants that patient was not medically treated by well-qualified doctors at the time when kidney transplant surgery was undertaken – As per case sheet of patient, doctors have treated patient to the best of their medical knowledge and administered best medical care which was possible – Although complaint of patient which remained persistent could not be ruled out despite medically approved drugs being administered to him and if patient could not be finally saved, that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence – Doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that patient will come back home after overcoming crisis – At the same time, no evidence has come on record at behest of appellants which, in any manner, could demonstrate that it was a case of post-operative medical negligence or follow-up care on part of treating doctors – National Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining complaint filed by appellants – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 29, 30, 31, 34, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Demise of husband of appellant no.1 after his long illness on 3rd February, 1996 has resulted in initiation of the legal proceedings at the instance of appellant no.1 along with her children on a bona fide belief that the cause of death of her late husband was post operative medical negligence and follow-up care. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after appreciating the material on record, including the evidence led by the parties, arrived to a conclusion that it was not a case of post operative medical negligence as being alleged by the appellants and dismissed the complaint by judgment impugned dated 21st July, 2009 which is the subject matter of appeal filed at the instance of the appellants under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Findings of Court:
The appellant made a very candid statement before Court that she wants now to sum up the matter and what she has lost is, in no manner, recoverable and compensation even if awarded by this Court is not going to be of any solace to her at this point of time. We realize the pain of losing her husband and the trauma she has suffered, but that cannot translate into a legal remedy.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. The sad demise of husband of appellant no.1 after his long illness on 3rd February, 1996 has resulted in initiation of the legal proceedings at the instance of appellant no.1 along with her children on a bona fide belief that the cause of death of her late husband was post operative medical negligence and follow-up care.
2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”), after appreciating the material on record, including the evidence led by the parties, arrived to a conclusion that it was not a case of post operative medical negligence as being alleged by the appellants and dismissed the complaint by the judgment impugned dated 21st July, 2009 which is the subject matter of appeal filed at the instance of the appellants under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the instant appeal, it may be necessary to cull out the facts relevant for the purpose. Complainant no.1, the widow and complainant nos.2 and 3, the minor children of deceased Naveen Kant, jointly filed a complaint, inter alia, alleging that in the first instance in April, 1990, Naveen Kant developed hypertension and was under the treatment of Dr.P.D. Gulati, Nephrologist, but when no positive changes had come forward, Dr. Gulati advised him for renal transplantation and since then, Naveen Kant was under regular dialysis at the hospital in Delhi under the supervision of Dr. Gulati. When some of his well-wishers informed him about a reputed Nephrologist, Dr. M.A. Muthusethupathi, OP No.1 who is performing kidney transplant surgery at Madras and after going through the entire medical record and seeking opinion of OP No.1 and after completion of all legal formalities as being contemplated under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter “the Act 1994”) and taking into consideration the fact that dialysis twice a week may not have been possible for longevity and for better life span of the patient Naveen Kant, the family took a decision to undergo for kidney transplantation and on the advice of OP No.1, the patient Naveen Kant was admitted to OP No.6 (Aswini Soundra Nursing Home), which is registered under the Act 1994 and a kidney transplant surgery was successfully performed on 12th November, 1995 by a team of 12 experts headed by OP Nos.1, 2 and 5, who are admittedly well qualified and experts with wide knowledge and experience in their respective fields and after the medical condition of Naveen Kant was reviewed by OP No.1, he was discharged from OP No.6 hospital on 24th November, 1995. It may be relevant to note that the doctors who had conducted kidney transplant of the patient have conducted more than 900-1000 renal transplants with good results, but there are cases where patient died even after successful kidney transplant for various reasons which cannot be even under the control of the doctors.
4. It reveals from the record that despite all post operative medical treatment and follow up care of the patient under the supervision of medical experts, still the destiny could not save him and he finally died on 3rd February, 1996.
5. The complaint of the appellants was that while Naveen Kant was discharged from OP No.6 hospital on 24th November, 1995, he was asked to attend as an outdoor patient for dressing of the wound at the place of incision, but his complaint throughout was that while he was in ICU, he had a pain in his left forearm where intravenous drugs were injected and at the given time, he was assured that the pain would subside in due course of time and as and when OP No.1 came for review, it was the consistent complaint of Naveen Kant of pain in the left forearm since he was operated and the day he was discharged on 24th November, 1995 and within a short period of 7 days on 30th November, 1995, OP No.1 noticed the onset of cellulitis in Naveen Kant’s left forearm and there was a recurrence of a
Medical Negligence – 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....
Medical negligence – Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by person against whom accusation of negligence is made.
To establish medical negligence, a complainant must prove a breach of duty by the medical professional, accompanied by cogent evidence. Vague allegations are insufficient.
To prove medical negligence, the claimant must show a breach of duty causing harm, supported by cogent evidence. The standard of care equates to the competency expected from an ordinary practitioner.
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
