New Delhi: Delhi High Court recently ruled that medical negligence couldn’t be proven solely through dissatisfaction or claims about “expected standard of care”. Evidence must show that a doctor’s performance was below the level of a competent practitioner in comparable situations, a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula pointed out.
The court was hearing a petition against doctors at Max Super Specialty Hospital Delhi by a man who claimed that their negligence had led to the death of his wife, diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus/haematemesis, in Oct 2016. The petitioner contended that administering 850mcg of fentanyl in a brief period was dangerous and resulted in the patient’s death through poisoning.
Delhi Medical Council (DMC) had found the two doctors responsible for professional negligence of duty. It issued a warning and directed them to undergo at least one month of training in emergency medicine at a recognised hospital. However, National Medical Commission (NMC), during its peer review, considered the doctors’ records, which contained comprehensive details about drug dosage calculations based on the patient’s health status and weight requirements, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence. The petitioner challenged the NMC order.
Considering the same details, the court determined that no grounds existed to suggest that either the DMC or NMC order was arbitrary or perverse. It noted that NMC found no substantial evidence of medical negligence after reviewing all medical documentation and treatment procedures and dismissed the plea.
The court emphasised that the medical bodies’ findings could not be dismissed unless proven perverse or unlawful. It added that while doctors must maintain reasonable diligence, their actions should not be assessed against predetermined expectations of procedures or outcomes.
“While the court empathises with the petitioner’s loss and appreciates the earnestness of his pursuit, it must emphasise that the findings of medical bodies, composed of experts in the field, carry considerable weight. Their determinations, supported by peer review, merit deference unless tainted by palpable perversity or illegality. The court finds no such grounds for interference,” the court concluded, adding that both bodies pointed toward the line of treatment provided considering the patient’s complex medical profile, rather than by professional misconduct.
New Delhi: Delhi High Court recently ruled that medical negligence couldn’t be proven solely through dissatisfaction or claims about “expected standard of care”. Evidence must show that a doctor’s performance was below the level of a competent practitioner in comparable situations, a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula pointed out.
The court was hearing a petition against doctors at Max Super Specialty Hospital Delhi by a man who claimed that their negligence had led to the death of his wife, diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus/haematemesis, in Oct 2016. The petitioner contended that administering 850mcg of fentanyl in a brief period was dangerous and resulted in the patient’s death through poisoning.
Delhi Medical Council (DMC) had found the two doctors responsible for professional negligence of duty. It issued a warning and directed them to undergo at least one month of training in emergency medicine at a recognised hospital. However, National Medical Commission (NMC), during its peer review, considered the doctors’ records, which contained comprehensive details about drug dosage calculations based on the patient’s health status and weight requirements, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence. The petitioner challenged the NMC order.
Considering the same details, the court determined that no grounds existed to suggest that either the DMC or NMC order was arbitrary or perverse. It noted that NMC found no substantial evidence of medical negligence after reviewing all medical documentation and treatment procedures and dismissed the plea.
The court emphasised that the medical bodies’ findings could not be dismissed unless proven perverse or unlawful. It added that while doctors must maintain reasonable diligence, their actions should not be assessed against predetermined expectations of procedures or outcomes.
“While the court empathises with the petitioner’s loss and appreciates the earnestness of his pursuit, it must emphasise that the findings of medical bodies, composed of experts in the field, carry considerable weight. Their determinations, supported by peer review, merit deference unless tainted by palpable perversity or illegality. The court finds no such grounds for interference,” the court concluded, adding that both bodies pointed toward the line of treatment provided considering the patient’s complex medical profile, rather than by professional misconduct.
