Medical negligence emerges from a medical practitioner’s action or negligence, which no rationally capable and diligent medical practitioner would have performed. A medical practitioner is presumed to adopt rationally skillful conduct and follow the medical profession’s standard skills and practices with expected care while attending/ treating the patient. Physicians who misbehave are liable to punishment and the quantum of the penalty varies according to the victim’s status.

Kunal Saha Vs. AMRI (Advanced Medical Research Institute) –

Anuradha, a child psychologist, she had come to her hometown Kolkata in March 1998 for a summer vacation. She complained to them of her skin rashes on April 25 and had consulted Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, who, without prescribing any medicine, asked her to take a rest. As rashes appeared more aggressively, on May 7, 1998, Dr Mukherjee prescribed Depomedrol injection 80 mg twice daily, a step that specialists later faulted at the apex court. After administering the injection, Anuradha’s condition worsened rapidly, following which she had to be admitted to AMRI on May 11 under Dr Mukherjee’s surveillance. Saha, in his plea before NCDRC, had necessitated a record of Rs 77 crore as Compensation. While granting Rs 1,72,87,500 as Compensation to Saha for his wife’s death, NCDRC had held the U.S. doctor accountable for contributing to the three Kolkata doctors. The hospital’s negligence ordered a 10 percent reduction in the amount of Compensation, making it Rs 1.55 crore. Another doctor was also involved in Anuradha’s treatment, Abani Roy Chowdhury, had passed away during the case’s pendency. As Anuradha’s condition failed to improve, she flew to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. there she was found to be suffering from a rare and deadly skin disease called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN).

She died there on May 28, 1998.

Saha then filed a criminal and a civil case against the doctors and both the hospitals on the grounds that they were grossly negligent in her treatment, leading to her death. In brief, these were the case’s facts and circumstances; in this case, the Supreme court gave the final verdict on October 24, 2013, and Compensation of around  6.08 crore for his wife’s death.

V. Krishan Rao v Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital 2010 –

Krishna Rao, an officer in the malaria department, filed a complaint against the hospital for negligently conducting his wife’s treatment. The hospital treated her for typhoid and giving medication for the same instead of malaria fever. The complainant’s wife complained of respiratory trouble. The complainant also brought forward to the notice of the authorities that, artificial oxygen to the patient. In Accordance to the complainant at that stage, artificial oxygen was not necessary, but without ascertaining the patient’s actual necessity, the same was given.  As the treatment has been given for typhoid, the medicines would have been for the exact cause and cure also has their side effect. They have been very negligent while discharging their sole duty towards their patient.

When the judgement was given, Rao was given a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs. In this case, the principle applied was Res Ipsa Loquitor, which means ‘the thing speaks for itself. Thus, the Compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

 Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Ors –

The court held that consent given for diagnostic and operating laparoscopy does not consent for a total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The appellant was not a minor, neither mentally challenged nor disabled. As the patient was a sane adult, there was no question of someone else giving consent on her behalf. The appellant was under anesthesia, thus unconscious, and as there was no emergency. The respondent should have waited till the appellant regained consciousness and gave proper consent. The question of taking the patient’s mother’s consent does not arise in the absence of an emergency. Consent given by her mother is not valid or accurate consent. The issue was not about the accuracy of removing reproductive organs but the failure to obtain consent for removing the reproductive organs as performing surgery without taking consent amounts to an unauthorized intrusion and interference with the appellant’s body. The respondent was restrained from paying the surgery fee wholly but directed to pay only the Compensation of unauthorized surgery.

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha –

The supreme court has reiterated that services rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor cause services free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service) by way of consultation, treatment and diagnosis, both surgical and medical, would fall within the service as defined in section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The judgment has faced a lot of opposition from the people involved in the medical field. However, this judgment has come as a wave of relief for all the consumers. With rampant increase in commercialization of services, including medical services, the patient has now become a mere consumer. This causes deterioration in the fiduciary relationship between a doctor and his/her patient. This judgment that reaches the arms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the medical profession will undoubtedly enable to keep a check on the doctors to discharge their duties diligently, for it is always the patient’s life at stake. It will make the method of treatment and surgery more transparent. One negative aspect of this judgment is that it does not prescribe any relief or Compensation for free medical services.

Consequently, solely doctors who work in paid hospitals fall under the scanner, while those who work in hospitals giving free medical services will go safe if they perform any error. Also, the burden of proof is upon the patient to prove negligence on the doctor’s part. Somewhat, the burden of proof should be shifted onto the doctor to prove that he was keen enough while performing his duties.

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia –

In this case Court, held that when a young child was carried to a private hospital by parents and treated by the doctors. Then not only just the child but his parents are also treated as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, a parent can claim the Compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the child’s parents and the child who was the service’s beneficiary. The hospital argued that adequate care had indeed been taken and hence would not be authorized to pay compensation for the mental agony the parents have went through. They disputed that the parents would not come under the definition of consumer in the consumer protection act. The court accurately pointed out that this contention was false since the consumer’s definition under the act includes parents.