Rule of Reasonable Foresight and Remoteness of Damage in Doctor–Patient Relationship
Keywords:
Actionable negligence, Bolam’s test, Damages, Doctor–patient relationship, NegligenceAbstract
A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men. But what amounts to reasonable conduct should only be decided upon by the court, based on the views of the experts in the field. If a man is, or holds out to be especially skilled in a particular profession, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily an expert in that profession. The purpose of awarding damages is to affect a “restitution in integrum”, i.e. by means of a money payment to restore to the plaintiff what he has lost as the result of the wrong. The assessment of damage is a specialize work and it is assessed differently for the damages of personal injury and for the damages of the loss of property.
References
1. Poonam Verma v. Ashvini Patel & ors. (AIR 1996 SC 2111).
2. (1957) 2 AII ER 118.
3. Dr. Lily Sri Vastava, Law & Medicine (2013), p.75.
4. Guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd Ishfaq (Civil Appeal no. 3541/2002 decided on 17th February 2009).
5. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delh i and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 422.
6. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
7. AIR 2005 SC 3280.
8. Fordham, M, The Bolam Test Lives On, Sing. J. Legal Stud. 140 (1998).
9. Amirthalingam, K, Judging Doctors and Diagnosing the Law: Bolam Rules in Singapore and Ma laysia, Sing. J. Legal Stud. 125 (2003).
10. [1957] 1 WLR 583.
11. Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All ER 635.
12. Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 65, 2000) p. 305. JLTCPL (2020) 1–7 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 7
13. Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, The law of Torts (2005), p.441.
14. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 2 AIIER 118.
15. State of Punjab v. Shivram, (2005) 7 SCC 5.
16. Poonam Verma v. Ashvini Patel& ors., (AIR 1996 SC 2111).
17. M N Shukla, The Law of Torts, (1990), p.216.
18. W. Wyatt-Paine, The Law of Torts, (7th Edn), p.140.
19. R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond, The Law of Torts, (17th Edn), p.536.
20. (4th Edn), p.428.
21. Supra n.33, p.225.
22. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, Cal S Ct 1976.
23. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, 1999 CTJ Supreme Court (CP).
24. The Indian Medical Council (professional conduct, etiquette and ethics) Regulations, 2002, regulation 7.16 requires that: “7.16: Before performing an operation the physician should obtain in writing the consent from the hu sband 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 wife is needed”.
25. Chatterton v. Gerson [1981] 1 All E.R. 257 and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) 2 SCC 1.
26. [1985] 3 All E. R. 402.
27. Jackson & Powell, Professional Negligence (2002), p.123.
28. (1914) 211 NY 124.
29. Y.V. Rao, Law Relating to Medical Negligence (2010), p.93.
30. Clause 13, the Code of Medical Ethics.
31. 2008(1) CPJ 56 (SC). Cite this Article Mini Paul . Rule of Reasonable Foresight and Remoteness of Damage in Doctor – Patient Relationship . Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law. 2020; 3( 2): 1–7p.
