Too much to expect from a Doctor to remain on the bedside of a patient throughout in the hospital: HC comes to rescue of Gynaecologist, doctors, nurses
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shimla: Reiterating that doctors cannot be held negligence merely because things went wrong, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh recently set aside an order by the lower court to pay Rs 2.6 lakh compensation to the family of a patient who died while giving birth to a child at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur.
Although the daughter of the deceased alleged that her mother had died due to the gross negligence of the doctors and nurses of the hospital, the HC bench exonerated them from such allegations.
"Going by the pleadings and evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the doctors and nurses, who were expected to provide reasonable care, have duly provided the same and they have not been found to be lacking in manner," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan.
Setting aside the lower court order, the HC bench further reiterated, "...a medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below the standard of reasonably competent practitioner in his field."
"In practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches. There could be a general difference of opinion. Nonetheless while adopting a course of treatment, the duty casts upon the medical practitioner is to ensure that the medical practitioner followed the medical protocol to the best of his skill and competence at his command. At the given time the medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner," it added.
The matter goes back to 2003 when the the petitioner's mother was taken to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for delivery. She was 10 days over than the due date and was a complicated case with High Blood Pressure. She got admitted to the hospital and the next day gave birth to a child with some complications i.e. retained placenta. However, later, the patient unfortunately died.
It was claimed by the petitioner that her mother died on account of gross negligence on the part of the doctors and nurses of the Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit through her father for damages and demanded Rs 5 lakh as compensation.
The appeal was challenged by the hospital and Government authorities and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the gynecologist or the other doctors and staff nurses of Hamirpur Zonal Hospital. It was also submitted that the patient had died natural death because of shock due to vaginal bleeding.
While considering the matter, the trial court awarded the petitioner damages to the tune of Rs 2,60,000 along with interest of 6% per annum. Challenging the order, the Secretary (Health) approached the HC bench.
The High Court bench, while considering the matter, referred to the Supreme Court orders in the case of M.V. Biviji vs Sunita and others to discuss what constitutes medical negligence.
At this outset, the bench noted, "Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that the crucial issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the defendants have exhibited negligence in providing proper post-operative medical care to the patient because the entire case set up by the plaintiff is also lack of proper post-operative medical care."
The court also referred to the Apex Court's order in the case of Jacob Mathews vs. State of Punjab and another, the order in the case of Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre vs. Asha Jaiswal and others, Malya Kumar Ganguly Vs Sukumar Mukherjee, etc.
Referring to these judgments, the bench observed,
"Thus, what clearly emerges from the aforesaid exposition of law is that a medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another."
In respect of the case of the deceased, the HC bench noted,
"Judged in the light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it has already been noticed that as regards the pleadings of negligence, they are wholly deficient."
The bench also referred to the order by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and it also perused the medical record. It opined that the trial court and the first appellate court did not consider the facts mentioned in the medical record and "both the Courts below have only been swayed by the fact that the plaintiff (minor) has lost her mother."
Opining that there was no negligence in the treatment provided to the deceased, the bench further noted,
"The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that it is dealing with a case of Government Hospital and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there would be lot many patients, who require to be attended to. The deceased has been attended to by the proforma respondent till about 3.30 PM, who thereafter had to leave all of a sudden to look after his ailing father, who had suffered paralytic attack and there was no one to look after. In absence of the proforma respondent, the patient was thereafter treated by duty doctor, Dr. Panchan, Dr. Anand Dhiman and the CMO Dr. Suman Sharma from time to time. The death of the patient is unfortunate but the same in the given circumstances cannot be attributed to the negligence of the doctors."
At this outset, the bench also referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre vs Asha Jaswal and others and noted,
"...it is too much to expect from a Doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient through in the hospital, which is being expected by the plaintiff."
Therefore, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the bench concluded that the doctors and the nurses, who were expected to provide reasonable care, duly provided the same and they were not found to be lacking in manner.
With this observation, the bench set aside the order of the trial court and the First Appellate Court and noted, "From the aforesaid discussion, it would be evidently clear that the findings rendered by both the courts below have been rendered out of sympathy. However, the same cannot sustain as the courts below have failed to appreciate the pleadings and the evidence on record in its right perspective and have rather misread and misconstrued the same. Further the courts below have failed to appreciate the law on the subject of negligence and also the vital aspect of vicarious liability in such like matters."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/himachal-pradesh-hc-no-medical-negligence-227112.pdf
