A Higher Threshold is required to hold a Medical Practitioner Liable for Negligence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court requested for a higher threshold for holding a medical practitioner liable for negligence during an ongoing case.
The supreme court noted the need for a higher threshold to hold doctors liable during an ongoing medical negligence case. This was to ensure that the priority should be patient care and not the fear of persecution in challenging medical situations. So to protect and to ensure that the medical practitioners fulfil their duties without any hindrance, a higher burden of proof is required.
A breach of duty and its link to resulting injury must be presented by the complainant to establish a doctor’s liability for medical negligence.
According to the complainant the primary accusation of negligence ws of unwarranted and forceful performance of Nasotracheal Intubation(IN) procedure, which was the sole cause of her voice loss and permanent respiratory tract damage. The Ni procedure was conducted even after multiple unsuccessful attempts to remove the tracheostomy tube(TT). It's worth noting that the Ni procedure involves the insertion of an endotracheal tube through a patient's nose to facilitate breathing.
Drawing from some influential judgements in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab(2005) 6 SCC 1, the bench emphasised the key elements under which the medical practitioners are held liable for negligence:
A duty of care to the complainant
A breach of duty
Resulting harm or injury attributed to the reach.
The medical practitioners are to be held liable for negligence only when their conduct fails below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner.
It was further explained that due to the unique complexities and complications in individual cases with the ongoing advancements in the medical field conflicting views on treatment choices are natural. If a doctor has chosen a particular treatment course that does not bring the desired outcome, it cannot be deemed as negligence as long as the chosen course adhered to recognised and relevant medical practise, even if it was a higher risk procedure.
Regarding the criticised judgement, it was noted that while the NI procedure amounted to negligence, it did not specify the particular breach of duty and NCDRC judgement did not identify the individual responsible for conducting the procedure.
