LI Network
Published on: October 28, 2023 at 11:52 IST
The Supreme Court, in the context of a series of appeals related to medical negligence, has made a significant observation.
The Court emphasized that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This, the Court explained, is essential to ensure that doctors can make treatment decisions based on their professional assessment without undue concern about potential legal persecution or harassment, especially in high-risk medical situations.
The Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra made this observation while hearing appeals filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case revolved around a complaint of medical negligence filed by Mrs. Sunita Parvate against Suretech Hospital, alleging that she suffered permanent damage to her respiratory tract and voice loss due to medical negligence during her treatment.
The complaint primarily centered on the unnecessary and forcefully conducted Nasotracheal Intubation (‘NI’) procedure, which led to the voice loss and deformity. The court observed that a medical practitioner can only be held liable for negligence when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner.
The Court emphasized that due to the complexities of individual cases and the constant advancements in medical practices, there will often be differing opinions about the appropriate line of treatment. However, the Court stated that a doctor should not be held liable for negligence if the chosen course of treatment is recognized as sound and relevant medical practice, even if it involves higher-risk elements.
In this particular case, the Court found that the medical team at Suretech Hospital had acted reasonably in choosing the ‘NI’ procedure as a temporary measure to assist the patient’s respiration.
The Court concluded that the complainant had failed to prove medical negligence, and the burden of establishing negligence rested on her.
In light of these considerations, the Court ruled that the case did not amount to medical negligence and that the medical practitioners had acted in the best interest of the patient.