What constitutes medical negligence?
Negligence is the breach of a duty caused, either by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Jacob Mathew v State Of Punjab & Another [AIR 2005 SC 3180].
Medical negligence involves three constituents such as the duty to exercise due care; breach of duty; and consequential damage, says the SC in Neeraj Sud vs Jaswinder Singh (Minor) [2024 INSC 825].
Simple lack care or error not constitutes negligence
However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties.
No penalisation because better care available
A doctor cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
When a doctor can be held for medical negligence?
A doctor may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment.
When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
What the landmark judgement in Bolam case says
In a celebrated and very often cited decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division), it was observed that a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with the acceptable norms of practice unless there is evidence of a medical body of skilled persons in the field opining that the accepted principles/procedure were not followed.
The test in such a case is known as Bolam’s test and stands approved by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews v State of Punjab and Another.
Person performing without qualification equals negligence
In Jacob Mathews v State of Punjab and Another the SC held that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence.
In conclusion
In short, simply because the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.
References
- Jacob Mathew v State Of Punjab & Another [AIR 2005 SC 3180]
- Neeraj Sud vs Jaswinder Singh (Minor) [2024 INSC 825]
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division)
