A division bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra from the Supreme Court recently underlined the need for a higher threshold to prove medical negligence liability. This position was taken during the appeals hearing for cases involving medical negligence. The Court wants to make sure that medical professionals can concentrate on using their clinical judgment to determine the best course of action without constantly worrying about facing legal ramifications or being harassed in difficult medical circumstances. The goal of the ruling is to create a compromise that preserves accountability standards in cases of negligence while enabling medical professionals to use their judgment with effectiveness.
The Supreme Court has highlighted the need for a higher burden of proof by the complainant due to unwarranted fear of legal ramifications. This implies that in order to prove medical negligence, the complainant will need to provide stronger evidence. In particular, the complainant must show that the medical professional violated their duties and that the harm that resulted from this violation was caused by the practitioner’s actions. The court’s position essentially aims to achieve a balance between making sure medical professionals can carry out their duties without constantly worrying about legal repercussions and holding them accountable for negligence. This higher bar is intended to deter baseless or insufficiently supported claims against medical professionals.
The bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy, was hearing appeals brought under the 1986 Consumer Protection Act. In these appeals, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision from February 16, 2018, regarding a case filed by Mrs. Sunita Parvate, was contested. Mrs. Parvate had claimed that she suffered irreversible harm to her respiratory system and lost her voice as a result of medical malpractice during her care at Suretech Hospital. In addressing the particulars of Mrs. Parvate’s complaint, the court hopes to shed light on the relationship between consumer protection laws and medical negligence claims.
The main focus of Mrs. Sunita Parvate’s complaint, which accused medical professionals of malpractice, was an unnecessary Nasotracheal Intubation (NI) procedure that resulted in voice loss and respiratory abnormalities. The NCDRC ordered that Suretech Hospital and the participating physicians pay Rs. 6,11,638/-as damages jointly and severally.
The ‘NI’ procedure that was forcefully and unjustifiably performed on Mrs. Sunita at Suretech Hospital on May 13, 2004, established medical negligence. In three appeals, Suretech Hospital and other physicians denied any wrongdoing, Dr. M.A. Biviji denied any role in the alleged negligence, and Mrs. Sunita sought an increase in compensation for the medical negligence that occurred during her treatment.
The Court emphasized that prior to choosing the “NI” procedure, the medical staff at Suretech Hospital had thoroughly evaluated the patient’s condition. It came to the conclusion that the procedure’s selection and execution were error-free. The NCDRC ruling had a flaw that the Court pointed out, namely that it acknowledged negligence in the “NI” procedure but did not name the person who was at fault.
The Court expressed its opinion that, given the difficulties encountered during the ‘TT’ decannulation process and the discovery of a stridor, choosing the ‘NI’ procedure as an alternative treatment for improved respiration could be medically justified after carefully reviewing the case file and expert medical reports. The Court underlined that opting for a different medical course of treatment does not equate to medical negligence, even in cases where the intended outcomes are not realized.
The Court highlighted the intricacy and imperfections of the medical field by quoting prominent author and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande to close the decision. The quotation emphasizes that medicine is not a disciplined and flawless science, but rather a dynamic and unpredictable field where professionals must deal with a changing body of knowledge, flawed people, and the ongoing challenge of saving lives. The recognition of the disparity between knowledge and goals highlights the complexities and difficulties that come with practicing medicine.
Taking these things into account, the Court concluded that this case demonstrates human fallibility even though it approved the first two appeals. In this case, the physicians genuinely tried to give the patient the best care possible while adjusting to changing conditions, using their professional judgment. However, the desired results were not achieved. Examining the course of treatment in this specific instance, medical negligence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
