MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE & MALPRACTICES IN INDIA: PERSPECTIVE OF TORTIOUS LAW
Keywords:
Negligence, doctor, patient, treatment, autonomy, self-determination, employment, liability, information, competenceAbstract
The profession of healing the suffering has gained respect from all corners of the society since time immemorial. A physician, apart from a healer, has been looked upon by the masses as a role model of grace personified, though of late this image has transformed to a mere service provider. This can partly be attributed to doctors themselves, owing to the increasing number of cases involving doctors engaging in unethical practices coming to light and, therefore, medical professionals have over the period lost the confidence of their patients and the society. The learned scholars, at all times, were sensitive to this tender aspect of a noble and pious profession being and made sincere attempts to codify the attitudes and practices to be adopted by the physicians.
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to care. It means carelessness in a matter in which the law mandates carefulness within reasonable limits. A breach of this duty gives a patient the right to initiate action against the physician. Persons who offer medical advice and treatment implicitly state that they have the skill and knowledge to do so as they have the skill to decide whether to take a case, to decide upon the likely course of the treatment, and to administer that treatment
The principle that doctors and indeed all professionals should be accountable for their failure is entirely acceptable. However, the modes to test this accountability of the professionals are diverse and various methods have been tried over the period of time[1]. It is left to one’s imagination how a prehistoric tribal chief punished a shaman or medicine man or witch doctor or priest, physician who was perceived to have injured the chief’s family. In earlier time medical negligence was considered more as a crime rather than as a tort. The early tribal or communal law depended on local practice and custom for controlling the actions of the members of the medical profession.
The seminal aim of this paper is to understand and analyse the concept of medical negligence and to weigh it with the tortuous liabilities that it may lead to and help the layman in recognising and understanding the effects and remedial measures.
References
1. Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something"
2. Venkatesh Iyer v. Bombay Hospital Trust , 1978 (2) TAC 820 (Bom).
3. AIR 1996 SC 550.
4. Mathiharan K, “State control of medical malpractice”, Law & Medicine , (An Annual Publication of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, National Law School of India University, Bangalore) Vol 4, 1998, pp 88-92.
5. K P S Mahalwar, Medical Negligence and the Law, New Delhi (1991), p.33. Medical Negligence & Malpractices in India: Perspective of Tortious Law N. Krishna Kumar JLTCPL (2020) 24–38 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 37
6. P C Dikshi, HMV Cox’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (7th Edn), p.35.
7. Kautilya Aarthasastra (4.2.22).
8. Supra n.5, p.35.
9. Alan Gledhill, The development of its laws and Constitutions (1964), p.260.
10. Bolam v. Friern, Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 583.
11. Para 13, Code of Medical Ethics.
12. Indian Medical Association v. V. Shantha, AIR 1995 SC 530.
13. Poonam Ve rma v. Ashvini Patel& ors ., (AIR 1996 SC 2111).
14. (1957) 2 AII ER 118.
15. Dr. Lily Sri Vastava, Law & Medicine (2013), p.75.
16. Guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd Ishfaq (Civil Appeal no. 3541/2002 decided on 17th February 2009).
17. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 422.
18. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
19. AIR 2005 SC 3280.
20. Fordham, M, The Bolam Test Lives On, Sing. J. Legal Stud. 140 (1998).
21. Amirthalingam, K, Judging Doctors and Diagnosing the Law: Bolam Rules in Singapore and Malaysia, Sing. J. Legal Stud. 125 (2003).
22. [1957] 1 WLR 583.
23. Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All ER 635.
24. Corpus Jurissecundum (Vol.65, 2000) p.305.
25. Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, The law of Torts (2005), p.441.
26. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 2 AIIER 118.
27. State of Punjab v. Shivram, (2005) 7 SCC 5.
28. Poonam Verma v. Ashvini Patel& ors ., (AIR 1996 SC 2111).
29. M N Shukla, The Law of Torts, (1990), p.216.
30. W. Wyatt-Paine, The Law of Torts , (7 th Edn), p.140.
31. R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond, The Law of Torts, (17th Edn), p.536.
32. (4th Edn), p.428.
33. Supra n.33, p.225.
34. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, Cal S Ct 1976.
35. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ , 1999 CTJ Supreme Court (CP).
36. The Indian Medical Council (professional conduct, etiquette and ethics) Regulations, 2002, regulation 7.16 requires that: “7.16: Before performi ng an operation the physician should obtain in writing the consent from the husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of minor, or the patient himself as the case may be. In an operation which may result in sterility the consent of both husband and w ife is needed”.
37. Chatterton v. Gerson [1981] 1 All E.R. 257 and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) 2 SCC 1.
38. [1985] 3 All E. R. 402.
39. Jackson & Powell, Professional Negligence (2002), p.123.
40. (1914) 211 NY 124.
41. Y.V. Rao, Law Relating to Medical Negligence (2010), p.93.
42. Clause 13, The Code of Medical Ethics.
43. 2008(1) CPJ 56 (SC).
44. AIR 1989 SC 2039.
45. 1999 CTJ Supreme Court (CP).
46. R N Saxena, Indian Penal Code (2007,) p.14.
47. Keith Simpson, Taylor’s principles and practice of medic al jurisprudence (12th Edn), p.54.
48. Supra n.57, p.15S.
49. Supra n.22, p.17.
50. Shweta Thakur, Vikram Singh Jaswal, Medical Negligence in India(2013), p.30
51. Professor Bernard Knight, Cox’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (7th Edn), p.108. JLTCPL (2020) 24–38 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 38
52. Supra n.22, p.35.
53. P S Atchuthen Pillai, Law of Tort (2002), p.388.
54. Achutraq H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 2383.
55. Article 32(3), the constitution of India.
56. S. 23, The Consumer Protection Act,1986.
57. V. Balakrishna Eradi, Consumer Protection Jurisprudence (2005), p.85.
58. Sec.9, Civil Procedure Code.
59. Sec.22B, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
60. Sec. 4, Criminal Procedure Code. Cite this Article N. Krishna Kumar. Medical Negligence and Malpractices in India: Perspective of Tortious Law . Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law. 2020; 3(1): 24–38p.
