BEWARE OF FAKE INSTITUTES WITH SIMILAR NAMES. blank    blank
banner

Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Negligence Case



  Oct 30, 2024

Medical Negligence:Neeraj Sud and Another vs Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Another 2024


Medical Negligence:Neeraj Sud and Another vs Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Another 2024

Background of the Case

This case involved a medical negligence claim against a doctor who performed a ptosis surgery (to correct drooping of the eyelid) on a minor in 1996. The child’s father claimed the surgery was done negligently, leading to worsening of the eye condition and sought compensation for medical expenses, emotional distress, and potential loss of earnings. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) initially ruled against the doctor, holding him liable for medical negligence.

Supreme Court Ruling

On October 25, 2024, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, overturned the NCDRC’s decision. The Court emphasized that complications alone do not establish negligence. They highlighted that the patient’s worsening condition after surgery did not automatically imply negligence on the doctor’s part.

Key Principles and Legal Tests

1. Bolam Test: The Supreme Court applied the Bolam Test, which is used to determine whether a doctor has acted negligently. This test asserts that a medical professional cannot be held liable if they followed a practice that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals, even if other doctors would have acted differently.

2. Burden of Proof: The Court clarified that the burden of proof lies with the patient or complainant to provide substantial evidence proving negligence. In this case, the complainants failed to demonstrate that the doctor’s actions deviated from standard medical practices.

3. Res Ipsa Loquitur: This Latin phrase means “the thing speaks for itself,” which implies that negligence is evident just by the outcome. The Court rejected the application of this principle, stating that an adverse outcome, in itself, is not enough to prove negligence. Proper evidence of a deviation from accepted practices is required.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for medical professionals in India:

• It provides protection against unfounded claims of negligence, particularly when complications arise despite adherence to standard practices.

• The judgment highlights the need for clear evidence of negligence rather than assumptions based solely on adverse outcomes.

• Medical practitioners are encouraged to exercise reasonable care and skill, but they are not held liable for unexpected outcomes if they follow accepted protocols.

The decision strengthens legal protections for doctors, aiming to balance accountability with the practical challenges and risks inherent in medical treatments.


Share:
 

Get a call back

Fill the below form to get free counselling for UPSC Civil Services exam preparation

 
UPSC DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS

 
DOLLAR INDEX AND INDIAN RUPEE: SIMPLIFIER
 
KODO MILLETS:ELEPHANT DEATHS IN BANDHAVGARH DUE TO FUNGAL POISONING
 
India's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Push: A Public-Private Partnership
 
RBI’S REGULATORY SANDBOX: SIMPLIFIER
 
Samudrayaan: India's Dive into the Deep - Simplifier
 
AlphaFold3:The AI Tool To Understand Proteins
 
INVERTED DUTY STRUCTURE: SIMPLIFIER
 
PYTHIAN GAMES IN INDIA: A CULTURAL RENAISSANCE
 
DECLINING HEALTH SPENDING IN INDIA
 
LIGHTNING RODS PREVENT LIGHTNING STRIKES:THE MECHANICS
 
FREEBIES IN INDIAN :CRITICAL ANALYSIS
 
IAS OFFICERS: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ARTICLE 311, AND WHISTLEBLOWING-RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS
 
ELON MUSK CANNOT BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
 
RANSOMEWARE ETC:CYBERSECURITY THREATS IN INDIA
 
EMPEROR PENGUINS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: FAQs