A doctor that he is a specialist and ultimately turns out that he is not, deficiency in medical services would be presumed (This judgment is an exemption to above statement)
A surgeon (M.S.) conducted ‘Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate’ Surgery. Due to post operative complication, caused patient death. It was contended by the Complainant that the Doctor was not competent in carrying out urological surgeries and relied on the following judgments.
.
...
A surgeon (M.S.) conducted ‘Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate’ Surgery. Due to post operative complication, caused patient death. It was contended by the Complainant that the Doctor was not competent in carrying out urological surgeries and relied on the following judgments.
.
...
In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukharjee & Ors., III (2009) CPJ 17 (SC) it was held that //“Even the matter of determining deficiency in medical service, it is now well settled that if representation is made by a doctor that he is a specialist and ultimately turns out that he is not, deficiency in medical services would be presumed.”//
.
In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)/ it was held that /“a professional may be held liable on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess.”//
.
The Doctor had sufficient experience in all types of surgeries, in urology. He has started practice with special interest in urology since 1992. He is also a Member of Urological Society of India.
.
Even though the TURP surgery is a domain of Urologist, yet in late 1990s, the urology field was at developmental stage, most of the Surgeons were practising Urology after training; qualified super specialists MCh Urology were not available. Even the Urological Societies were headed by experienced surgeons.
.
In the case V.K. Mehta (Col.) and Mehta Urology and Surgical Centre v. Vimla Devi, decided by this Commission, that the facts are different, that one Urologist performed Cholecystectomy which was negligence.
.
But, in this instant case, in late 1990s most of the experienced surgeons were performing prostatectomy/TUPR. Therefore, every mishap or mischance cannot be equated with a medical negligence
.
Even according to Malay Kumar Ganguly and the Jacob Mathew’s case we don’t find any negligence of the Opposite Party (Doctor), because he is a qualified Suregon, his credentials prove that, he has vast experience and skill of about 10-12 years in performing urological surgeries
.
For the reasons stated above and considering the entirety of the case, National Commission considered view that, Opposite party (Doctor) was not negligent during performing operation and during treatment of postoperative complications.
.
For full details refer to Law Journal: II (2015) CPJ (NC)
.
In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)/ it was held that /“a professional may be held liable on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess.”//
.
The Doctor had sufficient experience in all types of surgeries, in urology. He has started practice with special interest in urology since 1992. He is also a Member of Urological Society of India.
.
Even though the TURP surgery is a domain of Urologist, yet in late 1990s, the urology field was at developmental stage, most of the Surgeons were practising Urology after training; qualified super specialists MCh Urology were not available. Even the Urological Societies were headed by experienced surgeons.
.
In the case V.K. Mehta (Col.) and Mehta Urology and Surgical Centre v. Vimla Devi, decided by this Commission, that the facts are different, that one Urologist performed Cholecystectomy which was negligence.
.
But, in this instant case, in late 1990s most of the experienced surgeons were performing prostatectomy/TUPR. Therefore, every mishap or mischance cannot be equated with a medical negligence
.
Even according to Malay Kumar Ganguly and the Jacob Mathew’s case we don’t find any negligence of the Opposite Party (Doctor), because he is a qualified Suregon, his credentials prove that, he has vast experience and skill of about 10-12 years in performing urological surgeries
.
For the reasons stated above and considering the entirety of the case, National Commission considered view that, Opposite party (Doctor) was not negligent during performing operation and during treatment of postoperative complications.
.
For full details refer to Law Journal: II (2015) CPJ (NC)
No comments:
Post a Comment