A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of the person incharge of the patient if the patient is not be in a position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure.
Read the entire judgment\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION<\/strong> \u2026\u2026\u2026..Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Versus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026\u2026\u2026..Respondent(s)<\/p>\n\n\n\n BEFORE: <\/strong> Dated : 13 Dec 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n ORDER<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.J A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":501,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=473"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":500,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions\/500"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
NEW DELHI<\/strong>
REVISION PETITION NO. 102 OF 2018<\/strong>
(Against the Order dated 13\/09\/2017 in Appeal No. 539\/2016 of the State Commission Haryana)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
S\/o. Sh. Banwari Lal, R\/o. Chhotu Ram Nagar, Line
Paar, Railway Fatak No. 21, Bahadurgarh,
Jhajjhar
Haryana
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
W\/O. SH. MALHE RAM, R\/O. Chhotu Ram Nagar,
Line Paar, Railway Fatak No. 21, Bahadurgarh,
DISTRICT-JHAJJAR
HARYANA<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n
Through its Director Sh. Deepak Khattar, Delhi Road,
Bahadur Garh,
Jhajjhar
Haryana
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
S\/O. SH. O.P. SHARMA, R\/O. FLAT NO. 506, PKT. C-
8, SECTOR 8, ROHINI
DELHI-110085
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
R\/O. H.NO. 35-B, PKT-1, SECTOR 10, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110075
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
R\/O. FLAT NO. 61, PKT-6, SECTOR 23, ROHINI
DELHI-110085
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER\/INCHARGE,
54, JANPTAH CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
SCINDIA HOUSE, 13\/46, 2ND FLOOR, K.G. MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER<\/strong>
For the Petitioner :
For the Respondent :<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appeared at the time of arguments
For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 \u2013 4 : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.-5 : Mr. Anand Vardhan, Advocate
\u00a0
Pronounced on: 13 th December 2021<\/strong>
ORDER:
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
as the \u201cpatient\u201d) about 17 years of age hit by the train while crossing the railway track on 21.01.2011. Immediately at 2.50 pm, he was taken to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital (Respondent \/Opposite Party No. 1). It was alleged that the doctors therein did not carefully attend the fatal head injuries. The eurosurgeon was not available in the hospital and the patient was not referred to the higher centre. Ultimately, the patient died at 7.00 pm.\u00a0
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOxygen was given by mask 5 liter\/Min.
– IV-fluid Hemaxil started
– Inj. T.T. given
– Inj. Monocef\u00a0
– Inj. Epsolin\u00a0
Advice for surgical \/ Neurosurgical opinion asked.
Dressing done and Pt. shifted to I.C.U. for further treatment and advised to patient relative to bring 2 unit of compatible blood.\u201d
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
The Committee concluded as below:\u00a0<\/strong>
1. The specialist (Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Surgeon, Anaesthetist) the Doctors of the JJRH treated the patient as per their available facilities and their acumen.\u00a0
2. The inured Rahul suffered massive multiple organ Trauma in rail accident and died because of it.
3. Such type of injured patient needs tertiary care facility treatment like CT Scan, blood transfusion and evaluation by Neurosurgeon. So, this patient should have been referred to higher institute after the initial management.
\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of the person incharge of the patient if the patient is not be in a position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure.\u201d
The patient was critical and unless his condition gets stabilized, shifting the patient to higher center was not advisable. We do not find there was deficiency in treatment, the treating doctors followed the reasonable standard of practice.\u00a0
Based on the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the instant Revision Petition. We concur with the Order of the State Commission. The Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\u00a0\u00a0
\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
R.K. AGRAWAL
PRESIDENT
\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER
\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.
BINOY KUMAR
MEMBER<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"