Case Law Details
Baby Palak Khan & 2 Ors Vs Dr. Amit Upadhyay & 2 Ors. (NCDRC Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the National Commission while dismissing the Complaint observed that in the absence of any omission, rashness negligence much less gross negligence the allegation made against the Opposite Parties have not been established and hence no relief could be made out. The Complainants having failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 on the standards and tests laid down by the Apex Court as well as on the strength of the jurisprudence in this regard,
Facts: In present facts of the case, allegations of gross negligence and omission to take ordinary routine care of a new-born child have been raised. The grievance is that immediately upon her birth, the child having certain respiratory distress due to which she was given some treatment and as a result of negligent care she ultimately lost her eyesight. It is alleged that neither any effort was made to observe the minimum protocol that is needed in such cases nor were the Complainants informed of any such complication in the child at the opportune moment. The negligence was alleged to be about proper medical advice and taking due care for managing the aforesaid deficiency that could have been located at the initial stage had the Opposite Party No.1 and his team as well. A complaint was also made to the Medical Council on 4.1.2016 levelling allegations of gross negligence particularly against the first Respondent and also against the Hospital in general. According to the Complainant on the complaint before the Principal, a Committee was constituted for investigation comprising of three Doctors who opined that the Pediatric Department was negligent in treating the child for ROP and disciplinary action was recommended vide report dated 26.03.2016.
The 3rd Complainant also lodged a First Information Report before the Police Station under Sections 326 & 336, IPC. This FIR was lodged mentioning about the report of the Medical Committee of the Medical College wherein an allegation was made against Opposite Party No.1 that he was responsible for negligent treatment as a result whereof her child lost her eyesight. The Opposite Party No.1 challenged the FIR in a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court wherein the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR against the Opposite Party No.1. While quashing the FIR, the High Court relied on several pronouncements of the Apex Court including the applicability of the basic principles of Bolam test (Mc Nair in Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) I WLR 582) relating to medical negligence to arrive at the conclusion that neither the criminal proceedings could continue nor any subsequent proceedings taken against the Opposite Party No.1 in pursuance thereof could continue and were accordingly quashed. The judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court records findings in this regard. In conclusion in paragraph 25, the High Court after perusing the Inquiry Report referred to above came to the following conclusion :-
“In the present matter, very detailed inquiry report (in 20 pages) has been submitted by the medical board and as per final conclusion of the medical board, the medical board is of the view that the allegation of negligence against the petitioner is untrue.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
