INTRODUCTION
This article will focus on the Supreme Court's judgment in the medical negligence case of Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre vs. Asha Jaiswal and others. In this case, the Supreme Court presents an essential opinion on the concept of medical negligence. In this case, the NCDRC directed the plaintiff to pay the respondents Rs.14,18,491/- plus interest at the rate of 9% per year from the date of the complaint to the date of the filing. According to the complainant, the doctor was on a foreign visit at the time the patient was being treated. The DSA equipment was not working at the time of treatment. On the other hand, the hospital says expert doctors were present at the moment of therapy, the hospital and doctor would be satisfied the needs of the patient.
Medical negligence
The word "medical negligence" refers to a failure to follow through on a plan. Errors or negligence on the part of doctors can result in small or even severe injuries, and these errors can even result in death. Because no one is perfect in our world, even the most courteous and knowledgeable individual can make mistakes It's human to make errors, but it's irresponsible to keep making the same ones. The main reason for medical negligence is that it is frequently exhibited in a number of instances when appropriate care is not taken when diagnosing, executing surgeries, or injecting anesthetics by physicians or medical personnel.
A medical practitioner's poor or inept treatment of a patient is classified as medical negligence. This covers a nurse's, doctors, surgeons, pharmacists, or any other physician's failure to provide aid. When patients are injured due to a treatment provided by a doctor or nurse or health care, it is called medical negligence
In the case of Dr. Lakshman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole was that the respondent's son, who was 20 years old at the time, was engaged in an accident on a beach that resulted in a fracture of his left leg. He was rushed to the hospital for treatment. Instead of administering anesthesia to the patient, the doctor treated himself with a single dosage of morphia injection to decrease the fracture. In this treatment, he employed undue force, requesting the assistance of three of his servants to pull the patient's damaged leg. After that, he put his leg into the plaster. The treatment resulted in the patient's death due to shock.
Examples of medical negligence
Medicines are administered not correctly.
Performing the incorrect or ineffective sort of surgery
Giving incorrect medical advice
Leaving any foreign object in the patient's body after an operation, such as a sponge or bandage, etc
Supreme Court ruling on medical negligence
The Supreme Court ruled that the lack of first aid and the fact that the doctor in charge of treating the patient was on a business trip did not constitute medical malpractice. If the operating rooms were full when the patient was brought in for surgery, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian ruled that the hospital could not be held liable. “Expecting operating theaters to always be available is impractical. As a result, the unavailability of an emergency operation theatre during a time when other patients' surgeries were taking place is not a valid ground to hold the hospital accountable in any way.
The Applicant claimed that following the April 23, 1998 surgery, the doctor made the decision to amputate the member Doctors frequently travel abroad, and it is well understood that a medical professional must keep up with the latest developments in his field, which may necessitate him attending conferences both inside and outside the country, according to Justice Gupta, who authored the decision on behalf of the
"Mere fact that the doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as the patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties," he said.
The bench went on to explain that doctors cannot be held liable if the patient died despite treatment since even the best doctors cannot prevent the inevitable. The court stated that the family's assumption that because the procedure was conducted by a doctor, he would be solely responsible for various parts of the therapy necessary and supplied to the patient was incorrect.
"It is a case where the patient was in serious condition, impending gangrene, even before admission to the hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration, if the patient does not survive, the fault cannot be fastened on the doctors as a case of medical negligence," it said.
When a patient dies or has an accident, the bench remarked that there is a tendency to blame the doctor and that this is "intolerant" behavior on the side of family members who refuse to accept the death.
“The increased cases of manhandling of medical professionals who worked day and night without their comfort has been very well seen in this pandemic," it noted.
Expecting a doctor to be at a patient's bedside during his hospital stay, as the complainant had expected, was found to be unreasonable. The Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and a doctor filed appeals against a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruling in a case in which a patient died from a leg injury in 1998.
CONCLUSION
In this article we see Supreme Court show different views on medical negligence. Under some uncertain conditions if the patient dies family members blame the doctor and file case against the doctor for medical negligence or some time if any situation proper operation theater or any machinery is not working people filed a case of medical negligence but the supreme court says every situation where patients die from any uncertain situation does not come under medical negligence sometimes doctor take any decision or doing any treatment as per their knowledge and it’s not working on patients and patients dies that not means medical negligence.
REFERENCE
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/non-availability-of-operation-theater-for- surgery-is-not-medical-negligence-supreme-court-1341938 Non-Availability Of Operation Theater For Surgery Is Not Medical Negligence: Supreme Court