"Any death is unfortunate, but there is no rule of presumption that whenever a patient dies , it's because of Negligence of Doctors"

Case Details :

Sh. Rajbir Singh V/s. Dr. (Mrs.) N. Khera, Khera Hospital, New Delhi.

Compliant No.135/04

By Hon. Anil Shrivastava, Member.

Decided on 01/02/2019

Judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F0%2FC-135%2F2004&dtofhearing=2019-01-30

Facts of the case in brief :

1. It's the unfortunate case of parents, who lost their 19 years son, Narender, in the Hospital. It was contended that the deceased-son having consumed poisonous substance on 22.08.2003, allegedly due to mental depression, was brought to the Hospital in emergency. 

2. However it was alleged that the Doctor and the Hospital were guilty of negligence because :

a. they did not commence the treatment soonafter admission of the patient. 

b. They did not have required facilities like ICU, Oxygen, Qualified doctors, Ambulance, No registration with proper authorities.

c. The Condition of the patient was so critical that it was not even possible to shift him to another Hospital.

3. It was alleged that the patient expired within the period of 75 minutes from the time of admission.

Defense of the Doctors :

1. The Doctor and the Hospitals denied all the allegations of negligence. It was alleged that the deceased was frustrated from life and hence he consumed some poisonous substance. Only when he vomited 3-4  times @ home, then his parents came to know that he had consumed such such thing. 

2. When he was brought to the Hospital his situation was critical., blood pressure unrecordable, pulse 140/minute, sweating ++, and with visible signs of respiratory distress. Still he was treated by the on duty Doctor/R.M.O  and he started treatment i.e.   1) Oxygen inhalation 2) Gastric lavage 3) I.V. line set etc.

3. It was further contended that the poison consumed was obviously of great potency and concentrated and due to the effect of poison in the body of Mr. Narender, he suffered a cardiac arrest at 10.45pm. Due to his poor general condition, poor functioning of lungs as compared to normal human being of his age coupled with his unwillingness to live life, he could not respond to medication and thus there is no deficiency in service and there was no Negligence. 

Held :

1. After hearing of parties on merits, The Delhi State Forum dismissed the compliant. It was held that the deceased consumed very high potency of poison that made him critical and inspite of Doctors following standard protocol of treatment, he could not be saved and he died in short span of time.

2. It observed that it is trite law that if the doctor has taken proper precaution and despite that if the patient does not survive then the court should be very slow in attributing negligence on the part of the doctor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Achutrao Haribhan Khodwa and ors versus State of Maharastra and ors as reported in [1996] 2 SCC 634 is pleased to observe as under:

 “A medical practitioner has various duties towards his patient and he must act with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. This is the least which a patient expects from a doctor. The skill medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. But in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts would be maintainable.”

3. It was observed that as the law goes, the complainant failed to discharge burden of proving of medical negligence. 

This judgment is really  a Solace for Doctors. In day to day practice, such instances are very commonly faced by Doctors. Doctors will always try to give best possible treatment to the patient. This judgment underlines the inherent limitations of Medical Science. There are no. of cases where Doctors have been held negligent like surgery is performed on wrong organ, forgetting cotton inside abdomen, giving wrong blood, delay in treatment etc. and in such cases Doctors have been heavily fined. However as it has been correctly observed in the judgment that for every death in hospital, Doctors cannot be directly attributed with negligence unless there are circumstances to that effect.

Thanks and regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. ©