ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK versus CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 09-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK
v.
CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 227-228 of 2019)
JANUARY 09, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Negligence:
Medical Negligence – Complaint before Medical Council of
India – Alleging medical negligence leading to death of the wife of
the complainant – Medical Council found that treatment given was
not timely and the Director of the Hospital and the other doctor,
both were guilty of professional misconduct – The Council issued a
warning to the doctors directing them to be more careful in future –
Complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(SCDRC) seeking compensation of Rs. 48 lakhs – SCDRC held that
medical negligence was established and awarded compensation of
Rs.6 lakhs with interest @ 9% – National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reversing the finding of SCDRC,
rejected the claim of the complainant – On appeal, held: The medical
treatment provided in the present case was not in accordance with
WHO Guidelines as well as Guidelines prescribed by the Directorate
of National Vector Borne Diseases Control Programme – Thus, the
respondent-hospital failed to satisfy the standard of reasonable care
as laid down in the *Bolam case – NCDRC without any cogent
reason, reversed the findings of fact reached by SCDRC – However,
since the Director of the hospital was not a treating doctor nor the
referring doctor, hence cannot be held personally liable for medical
negligence – The respondent-hospital is held liable for medical
negligence – The compensation granted by SCDRC is also
inadequate and hence it is enhanced to Rs. 15 lakhs with interest
@ 9% – Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Medical Negligence – Ascertainment of – Held: A medical
practitioner would be liable for medical negligence only where the
conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent
practitioner in the field – While adopting standard of care, Indian
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 281
    281
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
courts must be conscious of the fact that a large number of hospitals
and medical units in the country, do not have access to latest
technology and medical equipment – The threshold to prove
unreasonableness is set with due regard to the risks associated with
medical treatment and the conditions under which medical
professionals function – Where unreasonableness in professional
conduct has been proved, a professional cannot escape liability
for medical evidence merely by relying on a body of professional
opinion.
Compensation:
Compensation for the death of home-maker spouse who is
not employed – Held: Contribution made by a non-working spouse
to the welfare of the family has an economic equivalence – Therefore,
for computing compensation payable for the death of a home-maker,
the Court must bear in mind that the contribution is significant and
capable of being measured in monetary terms.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The standard of care which is expected of a
medical professional is the treatment which is expected of one
with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge. A medical
practitioner would be liable only where the conduct falls below
the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field.
[Para 29] [296-G]
Kusum Sharma  v Batra Hospital and Medical Research
Centre  (2010) 3 SCC 480 : [2010] 2 SCR 685
– relied on.
1.2 Medical negligence jurisprudence in India is
characterized by a reliance on the *‘Bolam test’. The *‘Bolam
test’ has been the subject of academic debate and evaluation in
India and other jurisdictions.  Among scholars, the *‘Bolam test’
has been criticized on the ground that it fails to make the
distinction between the ordinary skilled doctor and the reasonably
competent doctor. The former places emphasis on the standards
adopted by the profession, while the latter denotes that
negligence is concerned with departures from what ought to have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
been done in the circumstances and may be measured by
reference to the hypothetical “reasonable doctor”. The Court
must determine what the reasonable doctor would have done and
not the profession.  Law must take into account advances in
medical science and ensure that a patient-centric approach is
adopted.  The standard of care as enunciated in the *Bolam case
must evolve in consonance with its subsequent interpretation by
English and Indian Courts. Significantly, the standard adopted by
t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.