SC: Medical Professionals Cannot Be Held Negligent Merely Because The Treatment Is Not Successful Or Patient Dies During Surgery

CASE TITLE

Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• This case was heard by the bench of Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant, A.S. Bopanna.
• There shall be solid evidence to prove medical negligence.
• The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was made applicable in this matter.
• The doctors cannot be held liable for medical negligence for every unsuccessful surgery or treatment unless proved.

BACKGROUND OF CASE

• The patient Mrs. Jasbeer Kaur was diagnosed with kidney stones in her right kidney and was advised to undergo surgery by Dr R K Majumdar.
• After some days, it was noticed that her right kidney is damaged and the left kidney was also diagnosed with stone.
• Dr H K Khurana and Dr. R K Majumdar were involved in the surgery of her left kidney which was a successful surgery.
• While conducting the second surgery of the right kidney, the patient expired despite of the best efforts made by the doctors.
• The appellant demanded the payment of balance medical bills but the husband of deceased denied and demonstrations were held in the hospital. This resulted in criminal charges against the hospital and magisterial enquiry was conducted.
• The appellant filed a complaint to recover the balance medical bills which triggered the criminal complaint filed against them and a claim for compensation was made.
• A complaint was filed against the appellant in NCRDC and compensations were claimed for medical negligence.
• The NCRDC held the hospital and the doctor guilty of medical negligence and directed the payment of rupees seventeen lakhs only with interest as compensation.

PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT

• After the appellant filed a case in Supreme Court, the bench noted that apart from the allegations made by the claimants before the NCRDC there is no other solid evidence of medical negligence. The doctrine of res Ipas loquitur could be made applicable.
• The learned counsel of the appellant quoted a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court Martin F. D’Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 wherein it was held that if the patient did not respond to the treatment or if the surgery failed then the doctor cannot be held directly for medical negligence.
• The court observed that the enquiry conducted by the district magistrate cannot be held as evidence for medical negligence on the part of doctors and hospital.
• The court also mentioned that as Dr H K Khurana had already conducted a surgery before of the deceased person he knew about her conditions and keeping in mind the reports and her condition he opted for the surgery.
• The court observed that in many cases where the surgery is not successful and the patient dies during the surgery, the doctors cannot be held responsible for medical negligence.

JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

• It was observed by the bench that the surgery was held by the experts and the same of doctors has conducted a surgery before of the deceased so it was highly technical medical issue also depending upon the condition of patient.
• There was no evidence available before the NCRDC rather than the enquiry by the district magistrate but that enquiry is not sufficient to hold the doctor and the hospital liable for medical negligence.
• Therefore, the conclusion as reached by NCRDC was not sustainable.

HOPE YOU FIND THE SNIPPET INFORMATIVE.

1. What is the meaning of the doctrine res Ipas loquitur?
2. What kind of evidences can prove the medical negligence of doctors and hospitals?