DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
07/09/2021
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta
Hon’ble Justice AS Bopanna
PARTIES:
Appellant: Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana
Respondent: Joginder Singh and Ors
SUBJECT
This judgment elucidates what acts by medical professionals constitute as medical negligence and what do not. To prove medical negligence, the material should be available on record or else some other appropriate medical evidence must be tendered.
OVERVIEW
- This case involved a female patient, who was diagnosed with hydronephrosis in her left kidney and a stone in her right kidney. The doctor advised her to get the left kidney operated first to minimise risk. Surgery for left kidney was successful and she was cleared for surgery on the other kidney. She died during the second surgery.
- Claimants approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging medical negligence. The NCDRC held the doctor and the hospital guilty of negligence and ordered the payment of Rupees 17 Lacs with interest.
- However, in appeal to the Supreme Court, it was observed that a medical professional cannot be held negligent if he or she performs a surgery which is unsuccessful, merely because of failure of the treatment.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Section 304-A of IPC - Under this Section, a person who commits a negligent act which results in death will be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years.
- Section 337 of IPC- It states that a person who commits a negligent act that threatens the safety of others may be imprisoned for up to six months or with a fine of up to five hundred rupees or both.
- Section 338 of Indian Penal Code- Punishes a person for committing a rash or negligent act that endangers the life of others. It states imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years or with a fine of up to one thousand rupees or both.
- Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code- It states that no person can be accused of an offence if he or she performs an act in good faith to the benefit of another person.
ISSUES
- Whether conduction of the second operation was medically negligent on part of the doctor?
- Can doctor be held liable in cases where patient dies during the surgery?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court noted that it is not automatic that a medical professional is negligent. Instead, it should be implied that negligence has been exhibited by the use of evidence and not by perception. It was observed that apart from the allegations made before the NCDRC, there was no other evidence to support the claimants' contentions. The respondents have also maintained that they followed the prescribed procedures.
- The reference is made to the answers given by the surgeon in the interrogation regarding the patient's first operation. It is clarified that the patient did not experience any complications during the operation. He also stated that the observation about the patient being poorly tolerant to anaesthesia was not made during the first operation and the surgeon did not encounter any complications related to anaesthesia.
- The alleged negligence should be so glaring that it should be considered as medical proof to hold the responsible parties accountable. The inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate could not be considered as evidence of medical negligence.
- The concept of assessment and the legal principles that were relied on by the NCDRC were not enough when the same patient underwent the same procedure and was successfully treated by the same team of surgeons, during the first surgery. The conclusion reached by the NCDRC was considered unsustainable.
CONCLUSION
The doctor has complete autonomy in deciding which therapy or treatment is right for his patient. This autonomy is usually higher in emergency situations. The correctness or otherwise of the line of treatment and the decision to conduct the operation and the method followed are all required to be considered in the background of the medical evidence in the particular facts of this case. Hence, any default to cure, complication, an occurrence of an infection, or even death, cannot be considered in segregation and labelled as being an act of medical negligence. Failure of operation and side effects cannot always be said to be due to medical negligence. A complaint may not be entertained unless the person giving such complaint produces prima facie evidence before the court, to support his/her claim of negligence of the accused doctor.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
