Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Supreme Court today said that if a patient dies due to the doctor8217;s error of judgement, he is not criminally liable but could be asked to pay the damages.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari while quashing criminal proceedings against a surgeon who had been charged under Section 304 A of the IPC causing death by negligence. 8216;8216;Where a patient8217;s death results merely from error of judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care and caution might create civil liability but would not suffice to hold him criminally liable,8217;8217; the bench said.
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari observed: 8216;8216;For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or surgeon, the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as 8216;gross negligence or recklessness8217;.8217;8217;
Dr Satish Gupta, the appellant, had performed nasal surgery on the patient for a deformity on April 18, 1994. However, the patient died the same day. The post-mortem revealed that the death was due to 8216;8216;blockage of respiratory passage by aspirated blood consequent upon surgically incised margin of nasal septum8217;8217;.
Medical experts have said that 8216;8216;blockage of air pasage was due to aspiration of blood from the wound and it was not likely in the presence of cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size being introduced before the operation and remained in position8217;8217;.
The bench said that the surgeon was negligent in 8216;8216;not putting a cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size8217;8217; and in a manner so as to prevent aspiration of blood blocking respiratory passage.
When a patient agrees to go for treatment or operation, every careless act of the doctor cannot be termed as criminal. It can be termed 8216;8216;criminal8217;8217; only when the doctor exhibits a gross lack of competence and wanton indifference to his patient8217;s safety and which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or negligence, the bench said.
