Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that doctors cannot be deemed negligent only because a procedure or therapy does not provide the desired outcome. It made clear that issues or unfavorable results do not always indicate medical malpractice. Rather than merely demonstrating an unpleasant outcome, negligence must be demonstrated by unmistakable proof of a departure from recognized medical procedures.
A doctor who operated on a youngster who had congenital ptosis (drooping eyelids) was the target of a complaint in this case. The family filed a medical negligence claim when the child’s condition deteriorated and the surgery failed to improve it. The Supreme Court overturned the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) initial compensation award, which held the physician and the medical facility accountable. It came to the conclusion that there was no proof of carelessness.
“Res Ipsa Loquitur,” which states that carelessness should be so evident that no other evidence is needed, was upheld by the court. It did clarify, nevertheless, that a poor surgical result or therapeutic outcome does not always indicate negligence. There are risks associated with medical procedures, and unpredictable results do not indicate misconduct.
Applying the Bolam Test, a standard from the 1957 English case *Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee*, was a crucial component of the argument. This test states that if a physician adheres to a recognized procedure that has been approved by an accountable body of medical experts, they are not being negligent. The doctor in this instance was determined to possess the necessary training and experience, and there was no indication that they had departed from recognized medical norms.
According to the court’s ruling, there must be a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and direct injury brought on by the breach in order to prove medical negligence. A negative result cannot be regarded as a duty breach in the absence of unmistakable proof of fault. The court acknowledged that difficulties can occur even with the finest precautions and that physicians shouldn’t be held accountable for infrequent or unfavorable results.
This decision shields medical practitioners who follow recognized procedures and use reasonable care from unjustified responsibility. It guarantees that patient rights are balanced with protecting physicians from unwarranted legal repercussions.
SOURCE :
HINDUSTAN TIMES
