DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS. versus DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 812
812
DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS.
v.
DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6507 of 2009)
APRIL 20, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Medical Negligence – Consumer Protection – Liability of
doctors – Demise of husband of appellant no.1 pursuant to kidney
transplantation – Allegation that the cause of death was post-
operative medical negligence – Complaint before National
Consumer Commission dismissed – Held: A medical practitioner is
not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from
mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in
choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another
– In practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of
treatment – At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable
only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a
reasonably competent practitioner in his field – On facts, no evidence
given by appellants to show that it was a case of post-operative
medical negligence – All post operative medical care protocol
available at the command of the respondents was administered to
the patient – Still his physical condition deteriorated and finally he
could not be saved – Merely because the patient could not be saved,
it cannot be considered to be a case of post operative medical
Negligence – Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act,
1994.
Words and Phrases – Word “negligence” – Meaning of.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctors can provide their best medical
assistance available at their command but merely because they
could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a
case of post operative medical negligence despite the fact that in
the present case, medical protocol administered by them was
duly supported by the two medical experts of the field who
appeared on behalf of the respondents, and nothing elicits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
from the cross-examination made by the appellants. [Para 21]
[823-F-H]
2. It clearly emerges from the exposition of law that a
medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things
went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error
of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in
preference to another. In the practice of medicine, there could
be varying approaches of treatment. There could be a genuine
difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of
treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he
must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is
to the best of his skill and with competence at his command. At
the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where
his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably
competent practitioner in his field. [Para 27][828-D-F]
3. The term “negligence” has no defined boundaries and if
any medical negligence is there, whether it is pre or post-operative
medical care or in the follow-up care, at any point of time by the
treating doctors or anyone else, it is always open to be considered
by the Courts/Commission taking note of the exposition of law
laid down by this Court and each case has to be examined on its
own merits in accordance with law. [Para 28][828-G]
4. Complaints have been made with regard to the post-
operative assistance / follow up care, but from the deposition of
two witnesses which has come on record, there was a complaint
made by the patient of pain in his left forearm while he was being
discharged on 24.11.1995 after remaining in ICU for 12 days, but
he was called upon to continue as outdoor patient and on all the
later occasions, even as per the case sheet of the patient, doctors
have treated the patient to the best of their medical knowledge
and administered the best medical care which was possible.
Although the complaint of the patient which remained persistent
could not be ruled out despite medically approved drugs being
administered to him and if the patient could not be finally saved,
that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative
DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS. v. DR. M.A.
METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
medical negligence, as is being tried to be projected by the
appellants on the basis of the material placed on record.
[Para 30][829-C-E]
5. The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but
no professional can assure that the 

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