Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High 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