9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in services and medical negligence. 2. Informed consent and communication of risks. 3. Appropriateness of surgical approach and procedure. 4. Post-operative care and follow-up. 5. Legal principles governing medical negligence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deficiency in Services and Medical Negligence: The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, attributing deficiency in services and medical negligence in the treatment of the deceased. The National Commission examined the case in light of established legal principles and found no merit in the allegations. The respondents argued that medicine is not an exact science and every surgical operation involves uncalculated risks. The Court reiterated that a medical practitioner is not expected to achieve success in every case but must exercise reasonable skill and care. 2. Informed Consent and Communication of Risks: The appellants alleged that informed consent was lacking and they were not informed about the possible complications of the operation. The respondents countered that the risks were explained to the patient and his family, and consent was given after due consultation. The Court emphasized that the duty of care includes informing the patient about the risks involved, but it does not require the practitioner to guarantee success. 3. Appropriateness of Surgical Approach and Procedure: The appellants contended that the anterior approach for adrenalectomy was not appropriate and that the posterior approach should have been adopted. The respondents, supported by medical texts and expert opinions, justified the anterior approach, particularly in cases of suspected malignancy. The Court found that the choice of surgical approach was within the acceptable standards of medical practice and did not constitute negligence. 4. Post-operative Care and Follow-up: The appellants criticized the post-operative care and follow-up, alleging that the deceased was not properly monitored and that complications were not adequately addressed. The respondents maintained that the patient was advised regular follow-up, which he did not adhere to. The Court noted that the patient's non-compliance with follow-up instructions contributed to the adverse outcome and did not find the respondents negligent in this regard. 5. Legal Principles Governing Medical Negligence: The judgment extensively discussed the legal principles governing medical negligence, citing landmark cases such as Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. The Court reiterated that negligence involves a breach of duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. It emphasized that a medical practitioner would not be held liable for negligence if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's decision, dismissing the appeal and finding no merit in the allegations of medical negligence. The Court underscored the importance of protecting medical professionals from undue harassment while ensuring they perform their duties with reasonable skill and care. The appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
|
