The Delhi High Court rejected a man’s plea seeking action against doctors over his wife’s death and said medical negligence was not merely established by dissatisfaction towards an expected standard of care. Justice Sanjeev Narula, in his December 20 verdict, said doctors should not be constrained either by the expectations or timelines set by the patient’s family.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court delivered an important verdict, stating that medical negligence cannot be established solely on the basis of dissatisfaction or claims regarding an “expected standard of care“.
Justice Sanjeev Narula clarified that concrete evidence must prove a doctor’s performance was below the standard expected of a competent professional in similar situations.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a man against doctors at Max Super Specialty Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner alleged that the doctors’ negligence caused the death of his wife in October 2016. She was diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and haematemesis, and the petitioner claimed that the administration of 850mcg of fentanyl within a short time was unsafe, leading to her death by poisoning.
Initially, the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) found the two doctors guilty of professional negligence. The DMC issued them a warning and directed them to complete one month of training in emergency medicine at a recognized hospital.
However, when the case was reviewed by the National Medical Commission (NMC), it concluded that the evidence did not substantiate negligence. The NMC conducted a detailed peer review, considering the doctors’ records, which contained precise drug dosage calculations based on the patient’s medical condition and weight. As a result, the petitioner challenged the NMC’s findings in court.
After analyzing the case, the court upheld the findings of both the DMC and the NMC. It concluded that there were no grounds to suggest these decisions were either arbitrary or unreasonable.
The court specifically noted:
“While the court empathises with the petitioner’s loss and appreciates the earnestness of his pursuit, it must emphasise that the findings of medical bodies, composed of experts in the field, carry considerable weight. Their determinations, supported by peer review, merit deference unless tainted by palpable perversity or illegality.”
It further highlighted that the NMC found no substantial evidence of negligence after reviewing the medical documentation and treatment procedures. The court dismissed the plea, emphasizing that the findings of medical bodies should not be overridden unless proven to be legally unsound.
The court made it clear that a doctor’s actions should not be judged against “predetermined expectations of procedures or outcomes“. Instead, claims of negligence must be supported by strong evidence that demonstrates a departure from the standards maintained by competent practitioners in similar circumstances.
The court concluded:
“The court finds no such grounds for interference,”
-adding that both the DMC and NMC attributed the treatment decisions to the complexity of the patient’s medical condition rather than professional misconduct.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Medical Negligence
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
