Medical malpractice, negligence: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Non-availability of operation theatres: SC */

2025-10-05T15:54:33Z

‎Non-availability of operation theatres: SC

Jyoti: /* Patient’s consent not essential for medical negligence */

2025-09-25T13:52:43Z

‎Patient’s consent not essential for medical negligence

Jyoti: /* Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable */

2025-06-27T20:56:59Z

‎Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable

Pdewan: /* Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable */

2025-04-28T09:17:55Z

‎Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable

Pdewan: /* Unethical even if consensual: MCI */

2025-04-19T10:00:09Z

‎Unethical even if consensual: MCI

Pdewan: Pdewan moved page Medical malpractice: India to Medical malpractice, negligence: India

2025-04-19T09:53:27Z

Pdewan moved page Medical malpractice: India to Medical malpractice, negligence: India

Jyoti: /* Patients' consent essential before invasive procedures */

2022-09-14T11:50:30Z

‎Patients' consent essential before invasive procedures

Jyoti: /* Person born despite mother’s tubectomy */

2022-02-16T08:19:18Z

‎Person born despite mother’s tubectomy

Jyoti: /* Person blinded as baby by doctors */

2022-02-16T08:16:57Z

‎Person blinded as baby by doctors

Jyoti: /* Compensation for medical negligence */

2022-02-10T11:39:26Z

‎Compensation for medical negligence

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 The deceased’s family was paid ₹5 lakh as interim compensation by the top court in March 2010 when it had agreed to examine the hospital’s appeal. The bench said that this amount shall be treated as ex gratia payment to Jaiswal’s family and will not be recovered by the hospital.
-[[Category:Crime|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+==Not every failed treatment is a case of medical negligence/ SC: 2025==
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=15_09_2025_017_009_cap_TOI  Sep 15, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
 [[Category:Health|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+New Delhi : Reiterating that a doctor cannot be charged with medical negligence simply because a patient does not respond favourably to treatment, the Supreme Court has granted relief to a doctor who was held responsible for the death of a woman following childbirth.
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+ A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma said a patient’s not responding favourably to the treatment provided by a physician or the failure of surgery cannot be a ground to hold the doctor liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”).
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
 =Guidelines=

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 On the doctors’ contention that the patient signed the consent form, the court said consent was for the procedure, based on the knowledge that the surgeons would exercise the requisite skill. “Had the implant failed, the case would not have fallen in the ambit of negligence, but the scope of consent for the operation can’t be and ought not to be permitted to be enlarged to cover negligent and reckless acts,” it said.
-[[Category:Crime|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+==“Patient is a ‘consumer’ even if treatment is free”==
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=23_09_2025_014_005_cap_TOI  Sep 23, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
 [[Category:Health|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+Ahmedabad : Does receiving free treatment from a hospital negate a patient’s right to be considered a consumer? The Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has clarified that even if a hospital does not charge, the patient remains a consumer because the hospital provides a “service” under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
 [[Category:India|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+The state commission sent a case back to the district forum, which in 2015 had rejected a compensation claim by a patient’s family. The family had sought compensation from a hospital after the patient’s death, alleging medical negligence. The hospital had provided free treatment. The state commission has directed the district forum to adjudicate the claim afresh within six months.
 [[Category:Law|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+ The case dates back to 2013, when Bharatkumar Gorahva was admitted to AksharHospital in Botad for kidney stone treatment. Post-surgery, an antiseptic injection was administered, which allegedly led to a deterioration in his condition and death.
 ==Removal of uterus to save life not medical negligence==

@@ Line 230: / Line 230: @@
 =Court rulings=
-== Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable==
+==Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Consumer-forum-absolves-doc-of-guilt-for-leaving-14022017011022  Manish Raj, Consumer forum absolves doc of guilt for leaving piece of drill in patient, Feb 14, 2017: The Times of India]
@@ Line 240: / Line 240: @@
 A bench comprising forum president K Jayabalan and member T Kalaiyarasi noted that Vasudevan had not provided any evidence to prove that the fragment caused him any injury .
 [[Category:Crime|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENCE: INDIA

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
-= Leaving piece of drill in patient tolerable=
+=Court rulings=
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Consumer-forum-absolves-doc-of-guilt-for-leaving-14022017011022  Manish Raj, Consumer forum absolves doc of guilt for leaving piece of drill in patient, Feb 14, 2017: The Times of India]
@@ Line 240: / Line 241: @@
 A bench comprising forum president K Jayabalan and member T Kalaiyarasi noted that Vasudevan had not provided any evidence to prove that the fragment caused him any injury .
 =Sex between doctor, patient=

@@ Line 252: / Line 252: @@
 “We were forced to form some guidelines after the Delhi high court questioned us about MCI’s rules against sexual misconduct. It was acting after taking suo motu cognisance of a case involving a doctor of Indian origin in the US in 2017. The doctor was earlier registered with MCI. The court directed us to adopt the existing guidelines of IPS after examining them,” a member of MCI’s ethics committee told TOI.
 However, academicians, said there was nothing new in the guidelines. Many of these points are taught in medical ethics and medical etiquette to every doctor during their MBBS course, said Dr Ajit Pathak, controller of examination, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences.
-[[Category:Crime|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+[[Healthcare: India ]]
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Health|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+[[Freedom of speech: India ]]
 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+[[Category:Crime|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENCE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
+[[Category:Health|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA
-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA]]
+MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENCE: INDIA]]

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 =Guidelines=
 ==Patients' consent essential before invasive procedures==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=PATIENTS-RIGHT-Consent-must-before-invasive-procedures-Consumer-11052017006031  AmitAnand Choudhary, PATIENTS' RIGHT - Consent must before invasive procedures: Consumer panel, May 11, 2017: The Times of India]
@@ Line 176: / Line 175: @@
 The hospital, however, said it may approach the Supreme Court. “We haven't received the copy of the order yet.After seeing the order, if order is adverse we will approach the Supreme Court,“ said Dr Shubhra Verma, General Manager (Operations), Sitaram Bhartia hospital.
 ==Removal of uterus to save life not medical negligence==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:19, 16 February 2022
Line 58:		Line 58:


−	==Person born despite mother’s tubectomy==	+	===Person born despite mother’s tubectomy===
	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_02_2022_001_016_cap_TOI February 6, 2022: ''The Times of India'']		[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_02_2022_001_016_cap_TOI February 6, 2022: ''The Times of India'']

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Ordering a 36-fold 4 increase in compensation, the Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu gov ernment and a state-owned hospital at Egmore in Chennai to pay Rs 1.80 crore to the parents of a child who had lost her eyesight within a year of birth 18 years ago due to the negligence of doctors.
 The child was born 10 weeks prematurely to V Krishnakumar and his wife in August 1996 at the government hospital for women and children. But the neonatal expert and the paediatrician at the hospital never warned the parents that all babies born prematurely were prone to retinopathy of pre maturity (RoP) and that if early preventive measures were not taken, it could re sult in blindness. The parents visited US for surgery But the light in her eyes could not be restored, which had gone out because of medical negligence at the government hospital at the time of her birth. Krishnakumar filed a case under Consumer Protection Act in February 1998 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi seeking Rs 20 lakh towards airfare, medical expenses and stay in the US, Rs 30 lakh towards future treatment and Rs 50 lakh for pain, loss and mental agony .
@@ Line 55: / Line 56: @@
 A bench of Justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde ordered the state and other respondents to pay Rs 1.38 crore as compensation and Rs 42 lakh as reimbursement of medical expenses, taking the total award to Rs 1.80 crore.
 == Free care by doctor: can’t file consumer case after that: SC==

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 10 February 2022
Line 55:		Line 55:

	A bench of Justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde ordered the state and other respondents to pay Rs 1.38 crore as compensation and Rs 42 lakh as reimbursement of medical expenses, taking the total award to Rs 1.80 crore.		A bench of Justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde ordered the state and other respondents to pay Rs 1.38 crore as compensation and Rs 42 lakh as reimbursement of medical expenses, taking the total award to Rs 1.80 crore.
		+
		+	== Free care by doctor: can’t file consumer case after that: SC==
		+	[https://www.latestlaws.com/case-analysis/can-a-patient-who-was-provided-free-medical-care-sue-doctor-in-consumer-court-sc-replies-180258 Sheetal Joon, Dec 9, 2021: ''Latestlaws.com'']
		+
		+	The Supreme Court has reiterated that a Doctor providing free medical services on behalf of the hospital cannot be sued under Consumer Protection Act for deceptive practices.
		+
		+	The Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian has established that such service wouldn't fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the ground that the medical officers are salaried employees of the Hospital, doesn't hold.
		+
		+	The Court was dealing with a plea assailing the NCDRC order in which the National Forum has upheld a District Forum decision wherein it dismissed Appellant's petition holding that she doesn't fall under the definition of a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
		+
		+	The Court observed that in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a Consumer is the one who hires or avails of any services for a ‘consideration’ which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised.
		+
		+	"Since the admitted case of the appellant is that the appellant has not paid any consideration for availing the services of the respondents - doctors and the nurses, she would not be covered under the definition of consumer to avail the remedies under the Act.”
		+
		+	The Court rejected the contention of Appellant's Counsel that that payment for service availed is not a necessary ingredient to file a complaint under the Act and relied on a receipt of service-charge while citing SC Judgement in "Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors, 2011 Latest Caselaw 410 SC".
		+
		+	The Court stated that the above ruling isn't tenable as it specifies the below:
		+
		+	"A medical officer who is employed in a hospital renders service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service as rendered by the Hospital does not fall within the ambit of 2(1)(0) of the Act being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(0) for the reasons that it has been rendered by medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for the employment in the hospital. It was thus concluded that the services rendered by employee-medical officer to such a person would therefore continue to be service rendered free of charge and would be outside the purview of Section 2(1)(0) of the Act."
		+
		+	The Court further observed that Consumer Court isn't the right redressal forum to provide her the remedy.
		+
		+	"In fact, in a common written statement filed, an objection was raised that the appellant should file a suit in a competent Civil Court by depositing proper court fee and not in Consumer Court as the suit is not maintainable before the Consumer Court."

	[[Category:Crime\|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|M MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIAMEDICAL MALPRACTICE: INDIA