LexVINOD JAIN versus SANTOKBA DURLABHJI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
VINOD JAIN
v.
SANTOKBA DURLABHJI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 25, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Medical negligence – Claim
for compensation – The wife of the claimant-appellant who was
suffering from various diseases was admitted on 15.10.2011 in
respondent no.1-Hospital and was treated by respondent no.2-
Doctor on account of fever and chills and dislodgement of nasal
feed tube – Nasal feed tube was reinserted and various tests were
done which showed infection and her medical treatment commenced
with intravenous administration of injection – As per the medical
reports, the cannula used for treatment stopped working and as the
patient displayed normal vitals, respondent no.2 prescribed a
further antibiotic tablet to be orally administered through the nasal
tube – On 18.10.2011, she was discharged from hospital and was
prescribed to continue antibiotic tablet for 5 days post discharge,
which was administered to her as per the appellant – On 23.10.2011,
she was again admitted in another hospital where she was put on
life support ventilation system and as her condition deteriorated
she was shifted to Fortis Hospital – On 31.10.2011, she died –
Claim petition filed by appellant against respondents before State
Commission which directed respondents to pay to the appellant
compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and cost of Rs.51000/- – National
Commission exonerated the respondents of any medical negligence
opining that at the highest it could be termed as a case of wrong
diagnosis and certainly not one of medical negligence – Held: The
approach adopted by the National Commission cannot be said to
be faulty, while dealing with the role of the State Commission, which
granted damages on a premise that respondent No.2-Doctor could
have pursued an alternative mode of treatment – Such a course of
action, as a super-appellate medical authority, could not have been
performed by the State Commission – There was no evidence to
show any unexplained deviation from standard protocol – The
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 843
843
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
deceased was medically compromised by the reason of her past
illnesses and was admitted to two other hospitals, post her discharge
from respondent No.1-Hospital – The medical certificate issued for
the cause of death by the Fortis Hospital cited septic shock due to
multiple organ failure as the immediate cause of death, with her
diabetic condition being an antecedent cause, as also the multiple
malignancies, post chemotherapy and radiotherapy all
contributing to her passing away – There was no fault in the
reasoning of the National Commission – Negligence.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Medical negligence –
A doctor cannot be said to be negligent if he is acting in
accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable
body of medical men skilled in that particular art, merely because
there is a body of such opinion that takes a contrary view – A
liability would only come, if (a) either the person (doctor) did not
possess the requisite skills, which he professed to have possessed;
or (b) he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in a given
case, the skill which he did possess – It is not necessary for every
professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch
in which he practices – Negligence.
Words and Phrases: Negligence – Meaning of.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A doctor cannot be said to be negligent if he is
acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a
reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art,
merely because there is a body of such opinion that takes a
contrary view. A physician would not assure a full recovery in
every case, and the only assurance given, by implication, is that
he possesses the requisite skills in the branch of the profession,
and while undertaking the performance of his task, he would
exercise his skills with reasonable competence. [Paras 9, 10]
[849-B-C, F-G]
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 :
[2005] 2 Suppl.SCR 307 – relied on.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee
(1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 118; Hucks v.
Cole (1968) 118 New LJ 469 – referred to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
1.2 Respondent No.1-Hospital promptly attended to the
wife of the appellant. Respondent No.2, physician, once again,
attended tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.