Case Law On Professional Malpractice
1. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969) — Supreme Court
Facts:
Dr. Joshi, an orthopedic surgeon, was sued for negligence alleging that he failed to take proper care while treating the patient, leading to complications.
Issue:
What is the standard of care expected from medical professionals in malpractice claims?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that a medical professional is expected to exercise the skill and knowledge of a reasonably competent practitioner in that field, not to be judged by perfection but by reasonable care and skill. Negligence is established only if the professional’s conduct falls below the standard expected of an ordinarily competent professional.
Significance:
This landmark judgment laid down the “reasonable skill and care” standard for medical negligence and professional malpractice, protecting professionals from unrealistic expectations of infallibility.
2. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) — Supreme Court
Facts:
A patient died allegedly due to negligence during a medical procedure. The doctor was charged with criminal negligence.
Issue:
Whether medical negligence can amount to criminal culpability and the threshold for such determination.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that medical negligence amounts to criminal culpability only when it is gross or reckless, showing a disregard for life or safety. Mere errors of judgment or isolated mistakes do not constitute criminal negligence.
Significance:
This case established the threshold for criminal liability in professional malpractice, requiring gross negligence beyond simple carelessness.
3. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) — UK House of Lords
Facts:
Bolam underwent electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without being informed of certain risks and sued for negligence.
Issue:
What is the test for professional negligence in medical malpractice?
Ruling:
The court held the “Bolam test”, stating that a professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of similar professionals.
Significance:
The Bolam test became the cornerstone in assessing professional negligence, requiring courts to consider accepted standards within the profession rather than imposing external standards.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) — Supreme Court (Context of Medical Records)
Facts:
Though primarily about privacy, the judgment emphasized the right to access medical records and professional responsibility towards patient confidentiality and data management.
Issue:
Professional malpractice in handling patient data and records.
Ruling:
The Court held that professionals must uphold confidentiality and provide access to medical records when required, failure of which can amount to professional misconduct.
Significance:
This ruling broadened the scope of professional malpractice to include data protection and confidentiality breaches.
5. V.K. Verma v. Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital (2000) — Delhi High Court
Facts:
A patient claimed medical negligence and professional malpractice against the hospital and doctors for improper treatment leading to permanent injury.
Issue:
Whether the hospital and medical staff are vicariously liable for negligence by their employees.
Ruling:
The Court held that hospitals are vicariously liable for the negligence of their medical staff. Professional malpractice claims can be brought against both individual practitioners and institutions.
Significance:
This case clarified institutional liability in professional malpractice, expanding the scope of accountability.
Summary Table:
| Case | Professional Field | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi (1969) | Medical | Standard of “reasonable skill and care” in malpractice |
| Dr. Suresh Gupta (2004) | Medical | Criminal negligence requires gross recklessness |
| Bolam v. Friern Hospital (1957, UK) | Medical | The “Bolam test” for accepted professional practice |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Medical/Data | Duty to protect patient confidentiality and provide medical records |
| V.K. Verma v. Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital (2000) | Medical/Hospital | Institutional vicarious liability for professional negligence |
Conclusion:
Judicial precedents in professional malpractice establish that professionals are expected to exercise reasonable care and skill, not perfection. Criminal liability arises only in cases of gross negligence or recklessness. The Bolam test remains a fundamental standard in assessing professional conduct, while institutions also bear responsibility for their employees' malpractice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments