Doctor not criminally liable if patient dies due to error: SC
From: Dr. Jai Maharaj (usenet_at_mantra.com)
Date: 08/05/04
- Next message: Darren Weston: "Please Help with Diagnosis"
- Previous message: J: "Symptoms of testicular cancer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:20:54 GMT
Doctor not criminally liable if patient dies due to error: SC
PTI
Thursday, August 5, 2004
Indraprasth, Aug. 5 (PTI) - In a judgment that would
relieve the entire medical fraternity, the Supreme Court
has ruled that if a patient dies due to an error of
judgment committed by the doctor, then he is not
criminally liable though could have to pay damages.
This judgment was given by a Bench comprising Justice Y K
Sabharwal and Justice D M Dharmadhikari while quashing
criminal proceedings against a plastic surgeon who faced
trial for criminal charges for causing the death of a
person who had wanted to remove a minor deformity in his
nose.
The Bench said for fixing criminal liability on a doctor
or surgeon, the standard of negligence required to be
proved should be so high as could be described as "gross
negligence" or "reckless".
"It is not merely lack of necessary care, attention and
skill," the Bench said and added "when a patient agrees
to go for medical treatment or surgical operation, every
careless act of the medical man cannot be termed as
'criminal'."
Justice Dharmadhikari, writing for the Bench, said it
could be termed 'criminal' only when the medical man
exhibited a gross lack of competence or inaction and
wanton indifference to his patient's safety and which is
found to have arisen from gross ignorance or gross
negligence.
"Where a patient's death results merely from error of
judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be
attached to it," the apex Court said
"Mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate
care and caution might create civil liability but would
not suffice to hold him criminally liable," it added.
Dr Suresh Gupta of Delhi was facing charges under Section
304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of the
patient. He had conducted an operation to remove a nasal
deformity on April 18, 1994 but the patient died the same
day.
According to the post-mortem report conducted after three
days, the cause of the death was "blockage of respiratory
passage by aspirated blood consequent upon surgically
incised margin of nasal septum".
>From the post-mortem report and the opinion of the three
medical experts of the medical team specially
constituted, the case of the prosecution laid against the
surgeon was that there was negligence in "not putting a
cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size" and in a manner
so as to prevent aspiration of blood blocking the
respiratory passage.
The Bench said the approach of the trial courts in such
cases should be such that if a doctor did not give proper
or adequate care to the patient, he should be liable for
damages.
"This approach of the courts in the matter of fixing
criminal liability on doctors, in the course of medical
treatment given to their patients, is necessary so that
the hazards of medical men in medical profession being
exposed to civil liability, may not unreasonably extend
to criminal liability and expose them to risk of landing
themselves in prison for alleged criminal negligence,"
the apex Court said.
It said "for every mishap or death during medical
treatment, the medical man cannot be proceeded against
for punishment. Criminal prosecution of doctors without
adequate medical opinion pointing to their guilt would be
doing great disservice to the community at large.....".
More at:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/holnus/001200408051652.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
- Next message: Darren Weston: "Please Help with Diagnosis"
- Previous message: J: "Symptoms of testicular cancer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
