Negligence only if the doctor is unqualified or does not treat patients with expertise: SC, ET HealthWorld

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said that a doctor can be held liable for negligence only when he lacks the requisite qualification and skill or fails to exercise reasonable expertise during treatment. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said that when reasonable care expected of the medical specialist was given or given to the patient, unless the contrary is proved, it would not be a case of actionable negligence.

“A medical professional can only be held liable for negligence when he is not possessed of the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill in the administration of treatment,” the bench said.

The apex court made the observations while quashing an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had booked a negligent doctor.

According to the complainant, their minor son was diagnosed with a congenital condition in his left eye which required a minor surgery which was performed in 1996 by one Dr. Neeraj Sud at the Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

The plaintiff argued that the physical deformity diagnosed in their son could have been cured by minor surgery because there was no other defect in the boy’s eyes. The procedure, it said, required the left eyelid to be lifted slightly and a correction made compared to the right eye.

The doctor, however, was accused of making a mistake in the procedure, which worsened the boy’s condition after the operation.

The plaintiff therefore alleged medical negligence against Dr. Sud and PGIMER, which was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2005.

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the applicants preferred an appeal before the NCDRC.

The NCDRC set aside the state commission’s verdict and held the doctor and the hospital “jointly and severely liable” for paying Rs 3 lakh and Rs 50,000 as compensation for the negligence of treatment.

Dr Sud and PGIMER filed an appeal challenging the NCDRC order in the higher court.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs also filed a plea seeking special leave to file a petition against the NCDRC judgment.

The high court observed that the plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence to establish negligence on the part of Dr. Sud or PGIMER.

The Bench noted that deterioration of the patient’s condition after surgery did not necessarily indicate that the surgery was improper or inappropriate.

“In the case of surgery or such treatment, it is not necessary that in every case the patient’s condition improves and the operation succeeds to the patient’s satisfaction. It is quite possible that in some rare cases complications of such nature arise but that in itself does not establish any actionable negligence on the part of the medical expert,” the bench said.

The apex court said that since the plaintiffs have not proved any negligence on the part of the doctor or the IGP, they are not entitled to any compensation.