Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Stringent Standards Must Be Met To Hold Medical Professionals Liable For Proving Medical Negligence: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment the Indian Supreme Court underscored the rigorous criteria required to establish medical negligence, setting a precedent for future medical malpractice cases. The ruling, delivered by Hon'ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra, reinforces the importance of scrutinizing the duty of care, breach of that duty, and resulting damage in medical negligence claims.

The judgment, which emerged from the civil appeals filed by Dr. M.A Biviji and Dr. Nirmal Jaiswal, among others, examined a complex case involving the alleged negligence during a medical procedure. The Court emphasized the burden of proof resting on the complainant to establish a breach of duty directly causing harm. It elucidated that medical practitioners would be held liable for negligence only if their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.

The ruling acknowledged the inherent complexities in the practice of medicine, where there may be genuine differences of opinion and multiple courses of action. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, in his observations, noted, "This is a classic case of human fallibility where the doctors tried to do the best for the patient as per their expertise and emerging situations. However, the desired results could not be achieved." This recognition of the imperfections in medicine emphasizes the need for a higher threshold of proof in medical negligence cases.

While the judgment acknowledged the serious medical complications faced by the patient, it concluded that the complainant had failed to establish medical negligence by the doctors. Furthermore, it found no evidence to suggest that the medical procedure in question was outdated or constituted poor medical practice. The Court's decision ultimately absolved the medical practitioners of the charges attributing medical negligence.

The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on future medical malpractice cases in India, as it clarifies the stringent standards that must be met to hold medical professionals liable for negligence. It reinforces the importance of considering the evolving nature of medical science and the challenges faced by healthcare providers in making critical decisions.

In the words of Dr. Atul Gawande, a renowned surgeon and author, cited in the judgment, "We look for medicine to be an orderly field of knowledge and procedure. But it is not. It is an imperfect science, an enterprise of constantly changing knowledge, uncertain information, fallible individuals, and at the same time lives on the line."

This judgment serves as a reminder that the law must balance accountability for medical errors with the understanding of the complexities and uncertainties that healthcare professionals face in their daily practice.

Date of Decision: October 19, 2023

M.A Biviji vs Sunita & Ors.     

Similar News