Medical Negligence

The plaintiff case was that the defendant was negligent in not diagnosing the illness at the right time.

The supreme court noted that:

• Firstly, there should be a duty of care or doctor patient contract should be established.
• Secondly, there should be a breach of duty by act of commission or omission by the doctor.
• Thirdly, Damage or harm must be casual as a result.
• Fourthly, the damage or harm should be casually related to the act of commission or omission.
  

The case was first commissioned and ordered appellant or the original opposite party (OP), Arvind Shah to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment and costs of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant or respondent, Kamlaben Kushwaha. The complainant claimed that the OP did not take due care while treating the son of the complainant, Prakash, who as a result succumbed to death. The appellant thus, appeals to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi challenging the order delivered by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The major concepts highlighted in the case is medical negligence and failure to provide basic information about the treatment to the patient. The court, however, held that the doctor should seek consent from the patient before his treatment and provide him with adequate information related to his treatment.

The adequate information provided by the doctor should possibly mention the following points:

• The nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits, and effect.
• Alternatives if any available.
• An overview of the substantial risks.
• Adverse effects of refusing treatment.