Medical Negligence And Professional Liability
1. Medical Negligence and Professional Liability
Medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional fails to provide the standard of care reasonably expected in their field, leading to harm or injury to a patient. Professional liability refers to the legal responsibility of medical practitioners for their acts or omissions.
Key Elements of Medical Negligence:
Duty of Care – The doctor or hospital has a legal obligation to care for the patient.
Breach of Duty – Failure to provide reasonable care, competence, or skill.
Causation – The breach directly causes injury or harm.
Damage – Physical, mental, or financial harm suffered by the patient.
Standard of Care:
Determined by the “Bolam Test” (UK) – a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals.
Indian courts follow similar reasoning but also consider the reasonableness and foreseeability of harm.
Professional Liability:
Includes civil liability (compensation to patients), criminal liability (for gross negligence), and disciplinary action under medical councils.
2. Case Laws on Medical Negligence and Professional Liability
Here are several landmark cases explained in detail:
Case 1: Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (UK, 1957)
Facts:
A patient underwent electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without muscle relaxants and suffered a fracture.
Issue:
Was the hospital negligent for not following a specific procedure?
Judgment:
The court held that a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals.
Significance:
Established the Bolam Test, still used to assess standard of care in medical negligence cases.
Case 2: Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors (1995, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Patients claimed medical negligence by private practitioners and hospitals.
There was ambiguity about whether medical professionals were covered under consumer protection laws.
Issue:
Are doctors and hospitals “service providers” under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)?
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that medical professionals rendering services for consideration fall under CPA.
Patients can claim compensation for negligence under consumer law.
Significance:
Paved the way for consumer complaints against doctors and hospitals in India.
Case 3: Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole (1969, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
The patient underwent surgery, resulting in severe complications.
The question was whether minor errors amounted to negligence.
Judgment:
Court stated that negligence does not mean mere error of judgment; the doctor must be grossly careless or fail to exercise reasonable skill.
The doctor was not held liable as he acted with reasonable care.
Significance:
Emphasized that professional judgment and human error do not automatically amount to negligence.
Case 4: State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra (1989, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Patient died due to delayed treatment in a government hospital.
Issue:
Liability of government hospitals and doctors for medical negligence.
Judgment:
Court held that government hospitals and doctors are equally liable if failure to provide timely treatment amounts to negligence.
Significance:
Affirmed vicarious liability of public healthcare providers.
Case 5: Dr. Kunal Saha v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors (Calcutta High Court, 1999)
Facts:
Patient developed complications after surgery. Alleged negligence in post-operative care.
Judgment:
Court examined medical records and expert opinions.
Held that failure to monitor post-operative condition properly amounts to negligence.
Doctors were ordered to pay compensation.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of proper documentation and post-treatment care.
Case 6: Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (Delhi, 2009, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Facts:
Hospital failed to diagnose pregnancy complications timely, resulting in fetal death.
Judgment:
Hospital held liable for medical negligence due to failure in diagnosis and delay in treatment.
Compensation awarded to the patient.
Significance:
Demonstrated liability for diagnostic errors and delay in critical care.
Case 7: Dr. Rajesh Talwar v. Dr. Umesh Shukla (Supreme Court of India, 2011)
Facts:
Allegation of incorrect medication leading to severe injury.
Judgment:
Court applied Bolam principle but also emphasized reasonable care and diligence.
Compensation awarded after expert testimony confirmed deviation from standard procedures.
Significance:
Reinforced that negligence is assessed both on professional standards and reasonable foreseeability of harm.
Key Legal Principles Across These Cases
Bolam Test – Reasonable standard of care by a competent professional is the benchmark.
Consumer Protection Act – Medical services fall under service law; patients can claim compensation.
Gross negligence vs. human error – Minor errors do not amount to liability; gross carelessness does.
Documentation and post-operative care – Failure to monitor or maintain records increases liability.
Government liability – Public hospitals are not immune from negligence claims.
RELATED Blog
comments