SC Order: Necessity of Identifying Parties in Medical Negligence Cases

M.A Biviji Vs Sunita & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

The case of M.A Biviji Vs. Sunita & Ors. before the Supreme Court of India addresses the intricate issues surrounding medical negligence. In this landmark judgment, the court underscored the importance of carefully considering the evidence before identifying the necessary parties in a medical negligence claim.

Essential Ingredients of Medical Negligence: The Supreme Court stressed that three fundamental elements must be established to prove medical negligence:

• The duty of care extended to the complainant.
• A breach of that duty of care.
• Resulting damage, injury, or harm caused to the complainant due to the breach of duty.

Standard of Care: It was clarified that a medical practitioner can be held liable only when their conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. This legal standard ensures that doctors are held accountable for genuine lapses in their duty.

Treatment Line and Desired Results: The judgment highlighted that doctors cannot be held liable for negligence solely because the chosen line of treatment did not yield the desired results. As long as the treatment follows sound medical practice and is not obsolete, negligence claims are not valid.

Identifying Necessary Parties: The court ruled that determining necessary parties in a medical negligence case cannot be done at the threshold and must consider the available evidence. Hospitals have the burden of establishing the absence of negligence when allegations arise, and they should provide proof that due care was taken, especially when doctors are employed by them.

Absence of Breach of Duty: In the specific case, the court found no breach of duty of care on the part of Suretech Hospital or the doctors involved. Consequently, the charge of negligence was not proven, and the compensation awarded for medical negligence was set aside.

Medical Complications: The court considered the possibility that the medical complications could have arisen at any of the hospitals or places where the patient underwent treatment. Multiple procedures and emergency situations added complexity to the case.

Expert Medical Committee Report: The RML Hospital Committee Report played a significant role in the judgment. As it did not attribute negligence to Suretech Hospital or the doctors, the court did not find a causal link between the procedure and the patient’s subsequent complications.

Reasonable Course of Treatment: The doctors at Suretech Hospital demonstrated that the ‘NI’ procedure was chosen after due consideration. It was not outdated or a poor medical practice. The decision to perform it was based on the patient’s evolving condition.

The Imperfect Science of Medicine: The judgment drew on the words of Dr. Atul Gawande, highlighting the inherent imperfection in the field of medicine. Medicine involves a balance of knowledge, uncertainty, intuition, and even guessing.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict in M.A Biviji Vs. Sunita & Ors. emphasizes the need for a careful assessment of medical negligence cases, considering evidence rather than making preliminary assumptions. It also underscores the importance of not attributing negligence when doctors follow reasonable and evolving medical practices, even in complex cases. This judgment sets a valuable precedent for cases involving medical negligence liability, ensuring that doctors and hospitals are held accountable when there is genuine negligence, while also safeguarding them against unwarranted claims.