Share This Post

Articles

A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

“Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” –

National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost.

A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016.

Factual Matrix in nutshell :
1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor refused to do initial stenting initially on the ground that he was not leave for holiday & thus Doctors violated the Hippocratic Oath. The Cardiologist could not do stenting properly.

2. The National Commission, after going through the entire record and medical literature, held that there is no Medical Negligence. The primary (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) PCI was not done due to non-availability of cardiologist, with explained consent and patient was referred to higher center. It should be borne in mind that, every cardiologist is not capable or experienced to the extent to perform PCI. The record shows the proper treatment given to the patient.

 

3. It further held, “Referring a patient to Higher Center is not the Medical Negligence”.

4. It relied upon the landmark judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Center & Others (2010) 3 SCC 480; which held that,
“Consumer Protection Act (CPA) should not be a “halter round the neck” of doctors to make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments to explore possibility of reviving patients hanging between life and death.”
“Doctors in complicated cases have to take chance even if the rate of survival is low. A doctor faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act,”

This case throws light upon the increased tendency of filing false cases against Doctors. As there is no counter-liability attached or there is no need to pay any Court-fee for filing consumer complaint, frivolous cases are increasing and overshadowing genuine cases.
Unless & until Medicos get untied and file counter-blast cases for, damages, such cases will go on… Every time figure of damages will add “0” (zeros)..

A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

An article by Adv. Rohit Erande.

Share This Post

9 Comments

  1. Good judgement to give some relief to doctors unnecessarily being dragged to court

    Reply
  2. CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT AND SOME COURT JUDGEMENT MAKES IT COMPULSORY TO ATTEND EMERGENCY PATIENTS WITHOUT ANY PROVISIONAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TREATMENT COSTS

    Reply
    • No it doesnt..

      Reply
    • How a medicine doctor can see gynae emergency, do you call plumber for electric short circuit? have some common sense and comment.. I wont see a patient whose condition I dont know…

      Reply
    • and also, learn english or comment in ur language.

      Reply
  3. Please improve the editorial quality of posts. One proof reading is mandatory.
    * “complaint” not “compliant” as per the context of the sentence.
    * “refused to do initial stenting” or “refused to do stenting initially”, not both
    * “he was ON leave for holiday” not “he was NOT leave for holiday”
    * “(IWMI) did” not “(IWMI).did”
    * “records show THAT the proper treatment WAS given to the patient”
    * “medicos get UNITED” not “UNTIED”

    No offence intended by me, however crisp grammar and punctuation make for a good read and quality journalism.

    I thank you for this good news.

    Reply
    • Thank you for the feedback. We will take these points into consideration when we will write future articles.

      Reply
  4. Very good article

    Reply
  5. Thanks.Good case

    Reply

Start the Discussion