Dr. Neeraj Sud vs. Jaswinder Singh(minor) and Anr. 2024

The Supreme Court in this particular case held at a doctor is not liable for the medical negligence solely because a patient’s condition deteriorated after surgery also court expand the provision of medical negligence and also grant an expansion to the doctor’s protection. the fact of the cases are as follows: 

• A consumer complaint was filed by the father of a minor, alleging medical negligence against Dr. Neeraj Sud and PGI, Chandigarh, after the minor’s eye vision deteriorated post- surgery for PTOSIS. 
• Prior to surgery, the minor's eye vision was 6/9, which dropped to 6/18 post-surgery, leading to double vision. 
• The State Commission rejected the complainant’s claims, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) accepted them, relying on medical records indicating that the PTOSIS condition worsened from moderate to severe. 
• The doctor and hospital appealed the NCDRC decision, leading to this Supreme Court ruling. 

• Whether a doctor is liable for medical negligence solely because a patient’s condition deteriorated after surgery? 
• What are the requirements for establishing medical negligence against a doctor in the context of surgery? 
• Can a doctor be held liable if the patient’s condition worsens despite following the acceptable practice in the medical profession? 

• The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's ruling and held that a doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence simply because the patient’s condition deteriorated post-surgery or the surgery failed 
• Medical negligence in such cases involves proving three elements: (i) duty to exercise due care, (ii) breach of duty, and (iii) consequential damage.
• A simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident is not enough to establish negligence
• The doctor can only be held liable if it is shown that they failed to exercise the required skill and care in discharging their duties
• The court emphasized that the doctor should not be liable just because a better treatment alternative could have been available or that other skilled doctors could have performed better 
• Bolam Test: Applying the Bolam Test, the Court noted that the doctor had the requisite skill and followed the accepted practice in the surgery. There was no evidence of negligence or failure to exercise due diligence, care, or skill. 
• A doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence solely based on the fact that a surgery did not result in a favorable outcome. For a claim of medical negligence to succeed, it must be established that the doctor failed to exercise the requisite skill and care. 
• The case reinforces the importance of the Bolam Test in medical negligence cases, which focuses on whether the doctor followed the accepted standard of care in their field 

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections relating to medical negligence or harm caused by professional malpractice may be invoked, though in this case, the issue primarily revolves around medical practice and negligence in a civil context.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – The case involves a consumer complaint filed by the father of the minor against the doctor and hospital under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging medical negligence.
• The Medical Negligence Principles – The case refers to the principles of medical negligence, as clarified in landmark judgments such as:
• Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957): This case established the "Bolam Test," which stipulates that a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals.
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005): This case recognized the standard of care required from medical professionals and reinforced the application of the Bolam Test.
• In this case, the Court did not directly rely on specific sections of the IPC but emphasized medical negligence law principles in the context of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court focused on whether the doctor had followed the accepted standard of care and whether there was evidence of negligence based on the treatment administered.