Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vinod Jain, filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and Dr. R.K. Bhandari after his wife, Sudha Jain, died on 31.10.2011. She had a history of oesophageal cancer, hypertension, and diabetes. She was admitted on 15.10.2011 with chills, fever, and a dislodged nasal feed tube. Treatment included intravenous Magnex and oral Polypod antibiotic. She was discharged on 18.10.2011 despite a high WBC count. On 23.10.2011, she went into coma, was admitted to another hospital, and later shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital, where she died. The appellant alleged inappropriate medication, failure to restart IV cannula, premature discharge, and oral administration of antibiotic instead of intravenous. The Medical Council of Rajasthan found no negligence, and the Medical Council of India rejected his appeal as time-barred. The State Commission allowed the complaint, awarding Rs.15 lakh compensation and costs. The NCDRC reversed, holding that at best it was a case of wrong diagnosis, not negligence. The Supreme Court, applying the Bolam test and principles from Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma, held that the doctor acted in accordance with accepted medical practice, the patient was clinically stable at discharge, and the subsequent deterioration could not be attributed to negligence. The appeal was dismissed, and the NCDRC order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Medical Negligence - Standard of Care - Bolam Test - A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art, merely because there is a body of opinion that takes a contrary view. The doctor need not possess the highest expert skill; it suffices if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. (Paras 8-9) B) Medical Negligence - Liability - Error of Judgment - A medical practitioner is not liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. Liability arises only where conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner. (Para 11) C) Medical Negligence - Principles - Kusum Sharma Case - The principles laid down in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital include: negligence is breach of duty; negligence must be culpable or gross; medical professional must bring reasonable degree of skill and knowledge; liability only if conduct falls below standard of reasonably competent practitioner; genuine difference of opinion does not amount to negligence; choosing a higher risk procedure honestly believed to provide greater chances of success does not amount to negligence; doctor not liable if he performs duties with reasonable skill and competence. (Para 12) D) Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal - The State Commission found negligence and awarded compensation, but the NCDRC reversed, holding that at best it was a case of wrong diagnosis, not negligence. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order, finding no reason to interfere. (Paras 2, 6, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were guilty of medical negligence in the treatment and discharge of the appellant's wife, leading to her death.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the NCDRC order exonerating the respondents of medical negligence. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Medical negligence
- Bolam test
- Standard of care
- Error of judgment
- Reasonable skill and competence
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
