Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Upholds Medical Council's Verdict: No Negligence in Cardiologist's Treatment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has affirmed the decision of the Delhi Medical Council, absolving a senior cardiologist of alleged medical negligence in the treatment of a 78-year-old patient.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the matter, stated that "the prescription reflects the casual approach of Dr. B.B. Chanana, which is not expected of an ordinary reasonable prudent doctor," yet he emphasized that this did not amount to medical negligence warranting punitive action. The decision underlines the court's reliance on the expertise of the medical disciplinary committee when adjudicating such specialized matters.

The case arose from a complaint lodged by the son of a deceased patient, alleging that Dr. B.B. Chanana's failure to conduct necessary tests on the initial visit led to his father's untimely death. The Delhi Medical Council, however, found that the treatment prescribed was appropriate given the patient's condition during the first visit and did not constitute medical negligence.

The Court's judgment reiterated the principle that medical professionals cannot be held liable for negligence if their actions align with accepted medical practices of the time. "So long as a Doctor follows a practice acceptable under the Medical Practice on that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence," Justice Prasad clarified.

While the Court acknowledged shortcomings in the cardiologist's documentation, it concurred with the Council's recommendation for Dr. Chanana to exercise greater diligence in the future.

Advocates representing the petitioner and the respondents engaged in thorough discussions, but the ruling ultimately favored the established medical opinion, dismissing the writ petition.

This judgment reinforces the judicial stance that expert bodies' decisions in technical fields like medical practice are to be respected unless proven 'perverse or unconscionable.'

The legal fraternity and medical councils across the country are closely observing the repercussions of this judgment for future cases of alleged medical negligence.

Date of Decision: 06 November, 2023

 BALJIT SINGH VS DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL & ANR

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-06-Nov-2023-Baljit-Singh-Vs-Delhi-Medical-Council.pdf"]

Latest Legal News