Medical Negligence

           

The medical profession is seen as honourable since it aids in the preservation of life. Patients

who consult a doctor or a hospital expect to be treated with the utmost knowledge and skill.

However, since the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 went into force, public awareness of

medical negligence in India has grown, as has the number of complaints and cases filed

against doctors and hospitals. Hospital administration and clinicians are increasingly

confronting criticism about their facilities, professional competence standards, and the

propriety of their diagnostic methods.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Medical negligence is described as a healthcare professional's negligent, incorrect, or

unskilled treatment of a patient. This can involve negligence on the part of a nurse, physician,

surgeon, pharmacist, dentist, or other health care worker. Medical negligence is the basis for

the majority of medical malpractice claims in which the victim claims injury as a result of

medical treatment.

Medical malpractice occurs when a doctor, other medical personnel, or a healthcare

organisation fails to meet the standard of care when supervising, diagnosing, or treating a

patient, resulting in injury. This deviation from the ordinary duty of care expected of all

medical personnel is frequently the result of negligence.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Kunal Saha vs AMRI (Advanced Medical Research Institute), also known as the Anuradha

Saha Case, was brought in 1998 with allegations of medical malpractice against the Kolkata

based AMRI Hospital and three doctors, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder, and

Dr. Balram Prasad. In layman's terms, the wife had a drug allergy, and the doctors were

irresponsible in giving medicine, which aggravated the patient's condition and eventually led

to death. In summary, the facts and circumstances of the case were presented before the

Supreme Court on October 24, 2013, and a compensation of around 6.08 crore was awarded

for the loss of his wife.

Aparna Dutt v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd 2002 established the notion of vicarious

liability. It was determined that if any member of the hospital's staff is careless in performing their prescribed duties, the hospital will be held liable for the negligent conduct of even

loaned doctors for specific performance of specified operations

Supreme Court ruled in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital 2010 that a doctor frequently

chooses a procedure with a higher risk because he honestly believes that it will increase the

patient's chances of success. If a doctor took a higher risk to relieve a patient's suffering and

it did not result in the desired outcome, this may not be considered medical negligence.

Krishna Rao, an officer in the malaria department, filed a complaint against the hospital in the

matter of V. Krishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital 2010 for negligent conduct in

treating his wife. Due to the hospital's error in medicine, his wife was treated for typhoid fever

rather than malaria fever. Finally, a verdict was reached, and Rao was awarded Rs 2 lakhs in

compensation. The principle of res ipsa loquitor (thing speaks for itself) was applied in this

instance, and the plaintiff was compensated.

Hospitals are also liable if they are not able to provide proper sanitation facilities as held in

Mr. M Ramesh Reddy.V. State of Andra Pradesh 2003

Conclusion

A medical professional can only be held accountable if the standard of care provided is less

than that which would be provided by a competent practitioner in that discipline.

A medical professional is not liable for negligence if he performs his duties with the utmost

care and takes all necessary precautions. Medical personnel should not be harassed

unreasonably, and undesired fear should not be instilled in them; instead, they should be

given the freedom to make decisions without fear, which is helpful to the patient.