THE SUPREME COURT OPINION IN BATRA HOSPITAL’S – CASE*

Basic Facts:- This was a case where Kusum Sharma ( Complainant) W/o one Late R.K. Sharma a Senior Operation Manager with Indian Oil Corporation filed a complaint for medical negligence against Batra Hospital. The patient developed high blood pressure in the year 1989; was obese and complained of swelling and breathlessness who was referred to Batra Hospital at the behest of Indian Oil Corporation, the employer. Amongst various tests Ultrasound and C.T. Scan it was diagnosed that there was a smooth surface of mass in the left adrenal and that surgery was imperative. The tumor concerned was also found to be malignant ;however surgery was duly performed. As alleged during the surgery the body of the pancreas was damaged and which was treated and drain was fixed to drain out the fluids. Unfortunately the patient died on account of “pylogenic meningitis” the contention of the complainant obviously being pancreatic abscess was evident as a result of pancreatic injury during the surgery. Complaint Dismissed:- The National Commission did not find any merit in the allegations of the patient and dismissed the same primarily for want of adequate evidence. On the contrary on the basis of medical literature and evidence of eminent doctors of AIMS it was confirmed that the treating doctors had not committed any negligence. It was also found that all the standard medical protocol was duly followed and that in the circumstances no malafides can be attributed against the hospital. The court referred to in details the case sheet; medical literature; and the discharge summary. ( Thus the audience of this article may take a note that it is important for the treating doctors and hospitals to maintain proper and complete records of treatment administered on the patient and which is an important tool of defense) Legal principles reiterated:- That the law of medical negligence has yet again been dealt quite exhaustively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case ; both international as well as Indian; and on scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially the United Kingdom the Apex Court has reiterated that the courts are to keep in mind while deciding the cases of medical negligence ; the following principles:- ( Which would be an useful guide to readers of this article both on the civil liability and criminal liability of medical negligence) “ Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his / her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a took for pressurizing the medical professionals / hospitals, particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.” * 2010(3) SCC 480