Mere fact that doctor went abroad cannot lead to medical negligence SC
New Delhi Nov 30 PTI A medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country and the mere fact that the doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence the Supreme Court on Tuesday saidA bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had directed the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and a doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe top court said it does not find that the basis of finding the doctor negligent in providing medical care is sustainable as there are both legal and factual errors in the findings recorded by the CommissionIt said every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligenceIn respect to such contention of the Doctor being on a foreign visit it is well known a medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country Mere fact that the Doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as the patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties the bench saidThe apex court said that the NCDRC had commented adversely against the doctor that he had not seen or attended the patient for several days before his departure for his tour to USA and UK for about a month and had not even indicated the name of any super specialist in his field who should look after the patient in his absence It said The patient was even attended by other specialist doctors as well which is evident from the brief summary of treatment given to the patient The experts in the other fields have been consulted from time to time and the treatment was modulated accordingly In spite of the treatment if the patient had not survived the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable The bench said it is a case where the patient was in serious condition impending gangrene even before admission to the Hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration if the patient does not survive the fault cannot be fastened on the doctors as a case of medical negligenceIt is too much to expect from a doctor to remain at the bedside of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital which was being expected by the complainant here A doctor is expected to provide reasonable care which is not proved to be lacking in any manner in the present case the bench said The apex court also said that operation theatres in hospitals cannot be presumed to be available at all timesTherefore non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold a hospital negligent in any manner the bench saidThe top court was hearing an appeal filed by the hospital challenging the NCDRC order which had directed it and the concerned doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe complaint was filed before the Commission by the legal heirs of the deceased alleging medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor in treating the patient PTI PKS RKS RKS
New Delhi Nov 30 PTI A medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country and the mere fact that the doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence the Supreme Court on Tuesday saidA bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had directed the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and a doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe top court said it does not find that the basis of finding the doctor negligent in providing medical care is sustainable as there are both legal and factual errors in the findings recorded by the CommissionIt said every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligenceIn respect to such contention of the Doctor being on a foreign visit it is well known a medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country Mere fact that the Doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as the patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties the bench saidThe apex court said that the NCDRC had commented adversely against the doctor that he had not seen or attended the patient for several days before his departure for his tour to USA and UK for about a month and had not even indicated the name of any super specialist in his field who should look after the patient in his absence It said The patient was even attended by other specialist doctors as well which is evident from the brief summary of treatment given to the patient The experts in the other fields have been consulted from time to time and the treatment was modulated accordingly In spite of the treatment if the patient had not survived the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable The bench said it is a case where the patient was in serious condition impending gangrene even before admission to the Hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration if the patient does not survive the fault cannot be fastened on the doctors as a case of medical negligenceIt is too much to expect from a doctor to remain at the bedside of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital which was being expected by the complainant here A doctor is expected to provide reasonable care which is not proved to be lacking in any manner in the present case the bench said The apex court also said that operation theatres in hospitals cannot be presumed to be available at all timesTherefore non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold a hospital negligent in any manner the bench saidThe top court was hearing an appeal filed by the hospital challenging the NCDRC order which had directed it and the concerned doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe complaint was filed before the Commission by the legal heirs of the deceased alleging medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor in treating the patient PTI PKS RKS RKS
