Medical Negligence

The core of medical negligence lies in the concept of duty of care. This means that a doctor has a legal obligation to provide a reasonable standard of care to their patients. This duty arises as soon as a doctor-patient relationship is established. For example, if a doctor agrees to treat a patient, they automatically assume a duty of care.

A breach of duty occurs when a healthcare provider's actions fall below the accepted standard of care. This could involve misdiagnosis, surgical errors, medication errors, or failure to provide appropriate follow-up care. The standard is what a reasonably competent doctor in the same specialty would have done in a similar situation.

Causation is a critical element. The patient must prove that the healthcare provider's negligence directly caused their injury or damage. It's not enough to show that the doctor was negligent; the negligence must be the direct cause of the harm. For instance, if a surgeon operates on the wrong limb, and the patient suffers permanent disability as a result, causation is clear.

Damages refer to the actual harm suffered by the patient as a result of the negligence. This can include physical pain, emotional distress, medical expenses, lost wages, and disability. The amount of damages awarded will depend on the severity of the injury and its impact on the patient's life.

The standard of care is not a fixed concept. It varies depending on the medical specialty, the location, and the available resources. A rural doctor may not be held to the same standard as a specialist in a metropolitan hospital, given the differences in resources and expertise.

The 'Bolam Test', though increasingly debated, has historically been used to determine the standard of care. It states that a doctor is not negligent if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. However, courts are now more willing to scrutinize medical practices and not blindly accept them.

The Consumer Protection Act provides a framework for patients to file complaints against healthcare providers for deficient services, including medical negligence. This Act allows patients to seek compensation for their losses through consumer courts, offering a relatively accessible and affordable legal avenue.

There is a limitation period for filing medical negligence claims. In India, this is typically two years from the date of the negligent act or the date when the patient became aware of the negligence. Missing this deadline can bar the patient from pursuing legal action.

Vicarious liability can hold a hospital or healthcare institution responsible for the negligent acts of its employees, including doctors and nurses. This is based on the principle that the employer is responsible for the actions of their employees while they are acting within the scope of their employment.

While criminal charges for medical negligence are rare, they can be filed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with causing death by negligence. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against automatically applying criminal charges in medical negligence cases, emphasizing the need to distinguish between genuine errors and criminal recklessness.

A key difference between civil and criminal medical negligence is the level of proof required. In civil cases, the patient must prove negligence on a 'balance of probabilities.' In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove negligence 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' a much higher standard.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) plays a role in regulating medical practice and ethics. While it doesn't directly adjudicate negligence claims, it can take disciplinary action against doctors found guilty of professional misconduct, which can include negligent acts.