Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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"]

Similar News