beware of advocates , people use your sense,
ADVOCATES MAKE UP NICE BUTTERING STORY THAT YOU WILL PAID NICELY BY HOSPITAL OR INSURANCE, EXTRA..... BUT TRUTH IS
CONSULTANT DOCTOR OR MEDICAL COUCNICL OF INDIA OR TRY TO PRESENT YOUR CASE ON YOUR OWN, ATLEAST YOU WILL ESCAPED
FROM FINANCIAL LOSS BY ADVOCATES.....
EVERY OPERATION OR PROCEDURE OR INJECTION HAVE SOME REACTION OR COMPLICATION, WE SIGN CONSENT FORM BEFORE UNDERGOING
ANY OPERATION MINOR OR MAJOR OPERATION.
ALL THESE MEDICAL CASES ARE REFERRED TO MEDICAL BOARD, AS PER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADVOCATES WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICAL STUFF,,,, CAN'NT JUDGE PROPERLY, SO ITS YOU TO
DECIDE,....... WHAT THEY ARE UPTO???
AS I WAS GOING THAT SENIOR MEMBER ADV SINGH...... NEED S HIS PUBLICITY ........
There is judgement by supreme court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3541 OF 2002 Martin F. D'Souza .. Appellant
Mohd. Ishfaq .. Respondent
A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because
things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment
in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He
would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a
reasonably competent practitioner in his field. For instance, he would be liable
if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation vide
A@@@@rao Haribhau Khodwa & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR
1996 SC 2377 or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also
criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for
As observed by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case :
"In the matter of professional liability professions
differ from other occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres
where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure
depends upon factors beyond the professional man's control."...............
"A medical practitioner 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. Obviously, therefore, it
will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a
medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. A surgeon
with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful
operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine
to his patient.
If the hands be trembling with the dangling fear of facing a criminal
prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason - whether attributable
to himself or not, neither can a surgeon successfully wield his life-saving
scalpel to perform an essential surgery, nor can a physician successfully
administer the life-saving dose of medicine. Discretion being the better part of
valour, a medical professional would feel better advised to leave a terminal
patient to his own fate in the case of emergency where the chance of success may
be 10% (or so), rather than taking the risk of making a last ditch effort
towards saving the subject and facing a criminal prosecution if his effort
fails. Such timidity forced upon a doctor would be a disservice to
When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the
doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be
punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals,
what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer
cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be
penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions.
We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a
doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or
by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital
against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should
first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors,
specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed,
and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case
of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned
doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be
ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to
arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters
laid down in Jacob Mathew's case (supra), otherwise the policemen will
themselves have to face legal action.
On the facts of this particular case, we are of the opinion that the
appellant was not guilty of medical negligence. Resultantly, the appeal is
allowed; the impugned judgment and order of the National Commission is set
aside. No costs.