2024 (10) TMI 1394 - SC - Indian Laws

Medical negligence of the doctor - deterioration of patient's condition due to neglugence of Doctor or otherwise? - HELD THAT - A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. In Jacob Mathews 2005 (8) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that Dr. Neeraj Sud or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by Dr. Neeraj Sood was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties. Simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties. The NCDRC ought not to have interfered with the findings and the impugned judgment and order of the State Commission so as to hold the doctor of the PGI negligent and to award compensation - the judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 of the NCDRC is hereby set aside and that of the State Commission is restored. Since the complainants have failed to prove any negligence on part of the doctor or the PGI, they are not entitled to any compensation as such, no question arises for its enhancement. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Medical negligence in treatment leading to deterioration of patient's condition, liability of doctor and medical institution, compensation claims, standard of care in medical profession, evidentiary burden in proving negligence.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals arising from a common order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) regarding medical negligence. The complainants, a father and son, alleged negligence in the treatment of the son's congenital eye disorder by Dr. Neeraj Sud at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh. The State Commission initially dismissed the complaint, but the NCDRC partly allowed it, holding Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI jointly liable for compensation and costs due to negligence in treatment.

The complainants sought Rs. 15,00,000 for suffering and Rs. 4,55,000 for treatment costs, but Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI defended, stating the surgery was performed with due care, and post-surgery complications were common and could have been rectified with repeat surgery. The State Commission found no negligence based on medical records, but the NCDRC reversed this, citing deterioration post-surgery as evidence of negligence.

The NCDRC's decision was based on the premise that Dr. Neeraj Sud did not exercise proper care in treatment, despite having necessary qualifications. However, the Supreme Court held that mere deterioration post-surgery does not establish negligence, emphasizing the need to prove breach of duty, which was lacking in this case. The court referenced the Bolam test, stating a doctor is not negligent if following accepted medical norms, unless proven otherwise by a body of skilled professionals.

The court found no evidence of lack of skill or care on Dr. Neeraj Sud's part, reinstating the State Commission's decision. It emphasized that unfavorable treatment outcomes alone do not indicate negligence, and the complainants failed to establish the essential elements of negligence in the medical profession. Therefore, the NCDRC's order was set aside, and the State Commission's decision was restored, denying the complainants' claim for compensation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 filed by Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI, while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012 filed by the complainants, as there was insufficient evidence to prove medical negligence, thereby upholding the standard of care in the medical profession and the burden of proof required in such cases.