In a recent decision, the Supreme Court said that a doctor cannot be immediately held liable for medical negligence simply because a patient did not respond favorably to the operation or treatment administered by a doctor or that the The operation failed. The court said that a doctor who follows acceptable practices of the medical profession in the performance of his duties would not be liable for the patient’s post-operative complications.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that merely because the patient has not responded favorably to the operation or treatment administered by a doctor or the operation has failed, the doctor cannot be held immediately liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the physician failed to exercise the skill he possessed in the performance of his duties.

The top court clarified that as long as the doctor follows the acceptable practices of the medical profession in discharging his duties, no liability for medical negligence can be imposed on him.

“The deterioration of the patient’s condition after the surgical procedure is not necessarily indicative or suggestive that the surgical procedure performed or the treatment administered to the patient was not appropriate or inappropriate or that there was a certain negligence in its administration In case of “It is not necessary that, in all cases, the patient’s condition improves and the operation succeeds to the patient’s satisfaction”, we can read in. the verdict.

The court added that it is very possible that in rare cases complications of this nature may arise, but that in itself does not constitute actionable negligence on the part of the medical expert.

“It is well recognized that actionable negligence in the context of the medical profession involves three elements: (i) the duty to exercise reasonable care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damages. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident does not constitute sufficient proof of negligence on the part of the health professional provided that he or she follows the acceptable practices of the medical profession in the exercise of its functions. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because better alternative treatment or treatment was available or because more qualified doctors were present and could have administered better treatment,” the judgment said.

The top court said that when the reasonable care expected of the medical professional is provided or rendered to the patient, unless proven otherwise, it would not be a case of actionable negligence.

“In a famous and much cited decision in the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division), it was observed that a doctor does not commit negligence if he acts in accordance with the standards of acceptable exercise, unless there is evidence of a medical body composed of persons competent in the field, believing that the accepted principles/procedures have not been followed. The test thus defined has become popularly known. under the name of Bolam test and is approved by the Supreme Court…,” the judgment said.

The case arose when a father filed a consumer complaint against PGI Chandigarh and a doctor, alleging that his minor son’s vision deteriorated after the operation.

The doctor and the hospital had approached the top court after the NCDRC accepted the petition of the complainant based on the medical reports indicating that after the operation, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated in their child.

Ignoring the findings of the NCDRC on an appeal filed by the Doctor and the Hospital, the top court observed that the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence unless the complainant proves that the doctor did not practice the skills he possessed in the performance of his duties.