Supreme Court redefines medical negligence

The Supreme Court has redefined medical negligence to include overdose of medicines, not informing patients about side-effects of drugs, not taking extra care in case of diseases having high mortality rate and hospitals not providing amenities that are fundamental for the patients.

A bench comprising Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Deepak Verma also noted that the legitimate expectation of a patient or his family members cannot be ignored while deciding a case of medical negligence. This means, the better the hospital, the more the degree of care it is required to take. The same is true for specialist doctors.

Setting aside a National Consumer Commission order on an appeal by US-based doctor Kunal Saha, whose wife had died in 1998 due to the negligence of some doctors in Kolkata, Justice Sinha said if representation is made by a doctor that he is a specialist and ultimately it turns out that he is not, deficiency in medical services would be presumed.

"The standard of duty to care in medical services may also be inferred after factoring in the position and stature of the doctors concerned as also the hospital. The premium stature of services available to the patient certainly raises a legitimate expectation," Justice Sinha said, while noting that Saha had gone to a hospital which claimed to be one of the best in the city.

Saha has been fighting a legal battle for over 10 years, alleging that his wife Anuradha had died due to drug overdose. Interestingly, the West Bengal Medical Council had given a clean chit to the doctors.

Though the Supreme Court held that the hospital was liable to pay compensation under the civil law for medical negligence, it gave a clean chit to it under the criminal law, which required a higher degree of negligence.

The court has asked the consumer commission to quantify the compensation to be paid to Saha. The doctor has been claiming over Rs 77 crore as compensation.

"No doctor has the right to use the drug beyond the maximum recommended dose," Justice Sinha, who delivered the verdict on the day of his retirement on Friday, said. He said the necessity of following instructions on the packet of a medicine cannot be underestimated.

Rejecting the argument that the disease had a higher mortality rate, he said: "We would assume the mortality rate is very high. If that be so, we feel that the doctors should have been more careful. They should have treated the patient upon exercise of more care and caution."

"The law on medical negligence also has to keep up with the advances in the medical science as to treatment as also diagnostics," Justice Sinha said.

In the times to come, litigation may be based on the theory of lack of informed consent.

He said a patient had the right to be informed about the risks involved if some medicine had some adverse affect or some reaction was anticipated.

The court clarified that negligence could not be attributed for not rendering a facility that was not available. But if "hospitals knowingly fail to provide some amenities that are fundamental for patients, it would certainly amount to medical malpractice." The bench said after a victim produced evidence to show negligence, the onus of defending themselves fell on the doctors.

A hospital cannot contend that proper treatment was not given due to interference by relatives.

Courtesy: Mail Today