2004 (10) TMI 637 - SC - Indian Laws

Non-impleading of treating doctors as necessary parties - non-joinder of necessary parties - Applicability of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to medical negligence cases - Distinction between 'contract for service' and 'contract of service' in medical negligence - HELD THAT - 'Contract of service' and 'contract for service' in both the contingencies the courts have taken the view that the hospital is responsible for the acts of their permanent staff as well as staff whose services are temporarily requisitioned for the treatment of the patients. Therefore, the distinction which is sought to be pressed into service so ably by learned counsel cannot absolve the hospital or the institute as it is responsible for the acts of its treating doctors who are on the panel and whose services are requisitioned from time to time by the hospital looking to the nature of the diseases. The hospital or the institute is responsible and no distinction could be made between the two classes of persons i.e. the treating doctor who was on the staff of the hospital and the nursing staff and the doctors whose services were temporarily taken for treatment of the patients. On both, the hospital as the controlling authority is responsible and it cannot take the shelter under the plea that treating physician is not impleaded as a party, the claim petition should be dismissed. Therefore, as a result of our discussion we are opinion that summary dismissal of the original petition by the Commission on the question of non-joinder of necessary parties was not proper. In case, the complainant fails to substantiate the allegation, then the complaint will fail. But not on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. But at the same time the hospital can discharge the burden by producing the treating doctor in defence that all due care and caution was taken and despite that patient died. The hospital/Institute is not going to suffer on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and Commission should have proceeded against hospital Even otherwise also the Institute had to produce the concerned treating physician and has to produce evidence that all care and caution was taken by them or their staff to justify that there was no negligence involved in the matter. Therefore, nothing turns in not impleading the treating doctor as a party. Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor/ or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital which is in better position to disclose that what care was taken or what medicine was administered to the patient. It is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence. The hospitals are institutions, people expect better and efficient service, it the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify and by not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve the hospital of their responsibilities. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was set aside. The case was remitted back to the Commission for a decision in accordance with the law. The hospital cannot absolve itself of responsibility by not impleading the treating doctor as a party, and it must justify that there was no negligence involved in the treatment.

Issues Involved
1. Non-joinder of necessary parties.
2. Responsibility of hospitals for negligence.
3. Distinction between "contract for service" and "contract of service".
4. Applicability of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to medical negligence cases.

Summary

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties
The appeal was directed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's dismissal of the original petition due to the non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellant's husband was admitted to the National Heart Institute and allegedly died due to medical negligence. The Commission dismissed the complaint because the treating doctors were not impleaded as parties. The Supreme Court held that the original petition should not be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The hospital can still discharge the burden by producing the treating doctor in defense to substantiate that there was no negligence.

Responsibility of Hospitals for Negligence
The Supreme Court emphasized that when a patient is admitted to a hospital, it is the hospital's responsibility to provide the best service. If negligence is found, the hospital is liable, regardless of whether the treating doctors or nursing staff are impleaded as parties. The hospital must justify that all possible care was taken and no negligence was involved.

Distinction between "Contract for Service" and "Contract of Service"
The respondent's counsel argued that there is a distinction between "contract for service" and "contract of service," suggesting that hospitals are not liable for doctors on a "contract for service." The Supreme Court rejected this distinction, stating that hospitals are responsible for the acts of both permanent staff and doctors whose services are temporarily requisitioned.

Applicability of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to Medical Negligence Cases
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which extended the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the medical profession. The Act applies to both private and government hospitals, including those providing free services. The Court held that the hospital is liable for negligence and the burden lies on the hospital to prove that there was no negligence.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commission's order, and remitted the original petition back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for a decision in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →