Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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.     

Latest Legal News