Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4596 of 2022
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Medical Negligence - Lack of Due Medical Attention and Care - NCDRC - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A] - The court dismissed the complaint of medical negligence as it found no act of medical negligence. It emphasized the need for specific evidence suggesting lack of due medical attention and care and highlighted that every death in a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence. The court referred to the decisions governing medical negligence and concluded that there was no justification to entertain the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The NCDRC considered evidentiary material in a complaint alleging medical negligence and dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence of medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no act of medical negligence and emphasized the need for specific evidence suggesting lack of due medical attention and care. It concluded that every death in a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Allegations of medical negligence, lack of due medical attention and care, applicability of legal provisions governing medical negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific evidence suggesting lack of due medical attention and care, highlighted that every death in a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence, and referred to the decisions governing medical negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of.
Key Points: - The court emphasizes the need for specific evidence suggesting lack of due medical attention and care to establish medical negligence. (!) - It states that every death in an institutionalized hospital setting does not necessarily amount to medical negligence. (!) - The appeal is dismissed because there was no material disclosing medical negligence and no justification to second-guess the original medical judgment. (!) (!) - The NCDRC dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence of medical negligence. (!) - Pending application, if any, stood disposed of. (!)
ORDER
1. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1] has considered the evidentiary material which was produced in support of the complaint alleging medical negligence. While dismissing the complaint by its impugned order dated 24 March 2021, the NCDRC has not found any act of medical negligence.
[1] 'NCDRC'
2. Unless the appellants are able to establish before this Court any specific course of conduct suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctors on the line of medical treatment which was administered to the spouse of the first appellant. In the absence of any such material disclosing medical negligence, we find no justification to form a view at variance with the view which was taken by the NCDRC. Every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.
3. In the circumstances and having due regard to the test which has been laid down by this Court in its decisions governing medical negligence, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Protection of Life – OPs failed to bring on record that inherent infrastructure and expertise to protect the life of deceased who was admitted.
(1) Torts – Medical negligence – Simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of medical professional so long as doctor follows acceptable pr....
Medical Negligence - It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical neglig....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the surgeon and the hospital for medical negligence, the endorsement of the need for qualitative change in the functioning of the ....
(1) Medical record - It should be borne in mind that “good medical record is good defense, poor medical record is poor defense”.(2) Medical negligence - The child was deprived of proper treatment at ....
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
