The law requires a fair and reasonable standard care and competence by the medical man towards this profession.
A medical man, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient. The medical man must exercise reasonable skill and care measured by the standard of what is reasonable to be expected from the ordinarily competent practitioner of his class. The standard of care which the law requires is not insurance against accidental slips, it is such a degree of care as a normally skillful member of the profession may reasonably be expected to exercise in the actual circumstances of the case in question. It is not every slip or mistake which imports negligence.
Also Read Nuisance
Every surgeon takes responsibility for what he injects into a patent; as a local anesthetic it is his duty to take some steps reasonably to make sure before he injects it that he is injecting that which he ordered. If he is negligent in this, he will be liable. If a medical man does not use reasonable skill and care, he is liable.
A whole time resident medical officer performing under contract of service for a country council, who was not a qualified medical practitioner but has passed the pharmacological part of her final examinations, took instructions on phone from the surgeon regarding the operation to be performed next day. On her note book she wrote down ‘cocaine’ of certain percentage in certain dose while in fact what the surgeon had phoned was ‘procaine’ to be kept ready for the purpose of injecting as a local anesthetic. The mistake was bona fide and was due to disturbance in sound, as a result five tmes of the lethal doze of cocaine with adrenalin was kept ready and was injected into the patient next day by the surgeon thinking that what he was injecting was procaine with adrenalin. The patient died. It was held that the resident medical officer did not use reasonable skill and care in his office fully knowing that the doze of cocaine which she got ready was more than the fatal doze. It was her duty to get the instructions checked. While dispensing a dangerous drug it is the duty of a dispenser pharmacist to see that prescription is in writing from a fully qualified medical officer, when an order is received (even writing signed by a qualified medical officer (requiring him to dispense an usually large quantity of a dangerous or poisonous drug, before doing so it is his duty to take steps to verify that there is no mistake about what is being ordered.
Where the hospital authorities accept a patient for treatment, it is their duty to treat him with reasonable care. If the surgeon and nurses do not treat him with a proper care and skill, the hospital authorities. must answer it, for it means that they themselves did not perform their
duties to him. A surgeon does not undertake that he will perform a cure, nor does he undertake to use the highest possible degree of skill, as there may be persons of higher education and greater advantages than himself; but he undertakes to bring a fair reasonably competent degree of skill; and in an action against him by a patient, the question is whether the injury complained of must be referred to the want of a proper degree of skill and care in the defendant or not. A doctor “must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. The doctor, no doubt, has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency.
Also Read Torts Affecting Movable Property
Also Read Dispossession
In Archana Paul v. State of Tripura, the Court has held that if negligence is alleged, the specific case is to be made out that in what manner the doctor was negligent in conducting the operation. In this case the petitioners had opted for Laparoscopic sterilization but subsequently had to bear pregnancy and ultimately gave birth to an unwanted child inspite of sterilization operation by Government doctors. The petitioners contented that due to the negligence of doctors the operation failed. The respondents contended that after sterilization operation written instructions were given to the petitioners to visit the hospital at regular intervals and in case of any complication, to contact the medical officer immediately for check up by the doctors. But none of the petitioners did it and they allowed the pregnancy to become matured. It was further contended that in Laparoscopic sterilization, there are chances of faiure and all the petitioners had also given their undertaking in case of failure of sterilization operation, they will not hold the Medical Officer responsible in any manner as there are chances of failure in sterilization. The Court held that the object of taking undertaking only indicates that there are chances of failure in Laparoscopic sterilization operation and the petitioners were aware about this fact and therefore they did not follow the written instructions given by Medical Officers. There was no averment in the petition that how the doctors were negligent in conducting the operation.
There was nothing to show that the Government doctors did not take due care, diligence and reasonable and competent degree of skill while performing the operation. Hence, it was held that the doctors did not act negligently and they were not liable.
In the cae of specialists a highest degree of skill and care is requried.
In P. Narsingha Rao v. G. Jayaprakasu, the plaintiff was given anaesthesia in order to be operated for some ailment. After giving anaesthesia the doctor kept him in the open temperature for 3 minutes and before removing the pipe for giving medicine failed to administer anaesthesia and he delayed in inserting the tube resulting in respiratory arrest. Although the surgeon was present in the room and saw the blocking of respiration but without obtaining the condition of the patient from the anaesthetist complete the operation as a result of which the patient suffered brain damage and he became totally dependant on his parents throughout his life. It was held that the anaesthetist and the surgeon both were liable for negligence for violating their duty of care.
In Joseph v. Jorge Munzela, the deceased (Mary) was admitted into a hospital for delivery where she gave brith to a male child. The delivery was normal and she was discharged from the hospital. On the same day she was admitted to hospital for post partem sterilisation which was done by the wife of the doctor (defendant No. 1) of the first hospital. Or 15-2-1982 the first defendant performed the operation. According to the first defendant the operation had been performed in cruel manner. There were no amenities in the hospital. There were no arrangements for administering chloroform. The deceased’s hand and legs were tied with the table so that she could not move. On 24.2.1982 she was discharged from the hospital. Out on 26.2.1982 she had to come to the hospital again because there had been pus in the wound and…..it was the first defendant who asked her to go to another hospital. She was admitted into another hospital where she was again operated. When operation was performed it was found that one part of the intestine was cut and pus was oozing from it. After this operation the pus again began oozing. She was again admitted into another hospital where on operation it was found that there were many holes in small intestine. At last on 31.1.1983 she died. The Kerala High Court held that the doctor was liable for negligence because the operation was done in crude manner. The Court awarded Rs. 1,60,000 damages to the husband and children of the deceased with 12% interest.
In Sishir Ranjan Saha v. State of Tripura, the petitioner, in addition to the claim of compensation, sought for a direction commanding the respondent to upgrade the standard of medical service of all hospitals in the State in general and for ensuring the service of specialised doctors in the time of needs of the patient. The petitioners son met with a vehicular accident and succumbed to the injuries virtually unattended medically in G.B. Hosptial Agartala. The deceased was admitted to the emergency ward of Government hospital and needed major surgical operation, specialist doctor was not available in the hospital. The specialist doctor was busy in attending to his private patients and cared little to attend the deceased despite repeated request over telephone. The Court held that the doctor was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The Court also issued directions for upgrading of medical service of all Government hospitals.