The Supreme Court Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. vs. Dr M.A. Methusethupathi & Ors., observed that there was no error in the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in concluding that no negligence committed by the respondents in the post-operative or follow-up care of the patient, Naveen Kant, who did not survive a kidney transplant. It is trite law that doctors can't be charged with medical negligence merely on the allegation that the patient couldn’t survive the surgery or any medical procedure.
The facts of the case state that the appellant’s husband, Naveen Kant, was successfully operated for kidney transplant surgery on November 12, 1995, by a team of doctors, at the Aswini Soundra Nursing Home, a registered hospital under The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. Unfortunately, the patient succumbed to death on February 3, 1996, after developing certain complications.
The Court also noted that no evidence of negligence in professional duty was present and the only basis for the allegation was that the patient couldn’t survive after the surgery. It observed that “doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis”.
Further, it also referred to Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr (2005) on the duty of care of medical professionals and observed in the present case that, “At the relevant time, only assurance given by implication is that he possessed the requisite skills in the branch of the profession and while undertaking the performance of his task, he would exercise his skills to the best of his ability and with reasonable competence. Thus, the liability would only come if:
(a) either a person (doctor) did not possess the requisite skills which he professed to have possessed; or
(b) he did not exercise with reasonable competence in the given case the skill which he did possess.
It was held to be necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch in which he practices. It was held that simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of the medical professional.”