Cases 2.

1. Name of the case – Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital & Med.Research

Year of the case – 10th February, 2010

Principle – To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that
the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no
medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard
taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely
imminent.

2. Name of the case – Moni vs State Of Kerala

Year of the case – 4th February, 2011

Principle – The test for the medical practitioners is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising
and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill; it is well-
established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man
exercising that particular art. In the case of a medical man, negligence means failure to act in accordance
with the standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time. There may be one or more
perfectly proper standards, and if he conforms to one of these proper standards, then he is not
negligent.

3. Name of the case – Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical vs Indian Medical Association

Year of the case – 11th February, 2011

Principle – In many cases, the complaints of medical negligence before the Consumer forum or criminal
courts have been found fault with. In matters of criminal negligence, the Supreme Court has now held
that such conduct must first be enquired into by experts in the field and then only the criminal court can
deal with such matters. A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to
redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by
omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of
negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. A surgeon with
shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician
cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.

4. Name of the case – Dr. Kunal Saha vs Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee

Year of the case – 21st October, 2011

Principle – Multiplier method provided under the Motor Vehicles Act for calculating the compensation
is the only proper and scientific method for determination of compensation even in the cases where
death of the patient has been occasioned due to medical negligence/deficiency in service in the
treatment of the patient, as there is no difference in legal theory between a patient dying through
medical negligence and the victim dying in industrial or motor accident. The award of lump-sum
compensation in cases of medical negligence has a great element of arbitrariness and subjectivity.

5. Name of the case – – Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital & Med.Research

Year of the case – 10th February, 2010

Principle – To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that
the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no
medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard
taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely
imminent.

5. Name of the case – Smt V.Madhavi W/O Venkataramana vs Dr.K.Thirupal Reddy & Ors

Year of the case – 21st December, 2012

Principle – A conspectus of the ratio in precedents would show that medical negligence on the part of
treating doctor or hospital has to be determined on the touchstone of the principle laid in Bolam’s case.
The guidelines provided for determination of medical negligence of a doctor or hospital indicates that in
cases of gross medical negligence the principle of res ipsa loquitor can be applied and that a doctor or
hospital can be found negligent in case of failure to exercise due care and reasonable skill if it does fell
below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner. The acts or omissions of the doctor
or the hospital whether constitutes negligence depend upon the current state of knowledge of the
doctor in medical science at which he treated the patient. The question of medical negligence is a mixed
question of fact and law.

6. Name of the case – M/S.Vetri Medical Agency vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

Year of the case – 3rd December, 2013

Principle – While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary
inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay
and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. Illustration of Medical negligence cases
is not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

7. Name of the case – Suresh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

Year of the case – 20th August 2014

Principle – Whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora
(whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court than before issuing notice to the doctor or
hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or the criminal court should first
refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to
which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is
a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the doctor/hospital concerned.
This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent and
police officials are not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters
laid down in Jacob Mathew case, otherwise, the policemen will themselves have to face legal action.

8. Name of the case – Dr. Sunita Verma vs Smt. Sangita Dubey & Ors.

Year of the case – 8th April, 2015

Principle – While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following
well-known principles must be kept in view: Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would
not do.

9. Name of the case – Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Sharma vs Indraprastha Apollo Hospital

Year of the case – 22nd April, 2015

Principle – The corporate hospitals and Specialists, as might be expected, must perform at a higher level
than other hospitals/ general practitioners. They, after all, represent themselves as possessing highest
standard facilities and care; they also possess superior skills and additional training. The hospital charges
and the doctor’s fees normally reflect this. No doubt that the compensation in medical negligence cases
has to be just and adequate, that the medical professionals need to be accountable to a certain degree.

10. Name of the case – Dr. K.C. Vidyarthi vs The State Of Bihar Through The Director General of Police,
Patna, Bihar.

Year of the case – 5th May, 2016

Principle – Impugned FIR instituted by the police is in complete disregard to the directions given by the
Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew’s case as also in Lalita Kumari’s case, as the same was instituted
straightway by the police on receipt of information regarding a cognizable offence under Section 304 of
the Code without holding any preliminary inquiry and obtaining an independent and competent medical
opinion from a doctor in that branch of medical practice.

11. Name of the case – Fortis Escort Hospital vs Amarjeet Singh

Year of the case – 22nd September, 2017

Principle – Before forming an opinion that expert evidence is necessary, the Fora must come to a
conclusion that the case is complicated enough to require the opinion of an expert or that the facts of
the case are such that it cannot be resolved by the Members of the Fora without the assistance of
expert opinion. No mechanical approach can be followed by these Fora. Each case has to be judged on
its own facts. If a decision is taken that in all cases medical negligence has to be proved on the basis of
expert evidence, in that event the efficacy of the remedy provided under this Act will be unnecessarily
burdened and in many cases, such remedy would be illusory.

12. Name of the case – Sagolsem Naran Singh vs Director, Rims And 3 Others

Year of the case – 9 April, 2018

Principle – In a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the
complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the
onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the attending doctors and it is for the hospital to satisfy the
court that there was no lack of care or diligence.

13. Name of the case – C Rl. O. P.(Md) N O. 1 3 6 8 1 O F 2 0 1 8 vs The Superintendent Of Police

Year of the case – 5th July, 2018

Principle – Though Section 154 of the CrPC postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all
cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to
the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of
allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to
prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.

14. Name of the case – Dr. A.K. Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others

Year of the case – 12th October, 2018

Principle – Whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora
(whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or
hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer
the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the
medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima
facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital. This is
necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent.

15. Name of the case – Miss. Sunanda G. Barve vs Dr. Jayant S. Barve

Year of the case – 21st December, 2018

Principle – The complainant if fails to prove the medical negligence and deficiency in service, is not
entitled to get the compensation. Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State
Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it
shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint.

16. Name of the case – Vinod Jain vs Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital & Anr.

Year of the case – 25th February, 2019

Principle – Any individual approaching such a skilled person would have a reasonable expectation of a
degree of care and caution, however, there could be no assurance of the result. A physician thus would
not assure a full recovery in every case, and the only assurance given by implication is that he possesses
the requisite skills in the branch of the profession and while undertaking the performance of his task, he
would exercise his skills with reasonable competence. Thus, a liability would only come, if: (a) either the
person (doctor) did not possess the requisite skills, which he professed to have possessed; or (b) he did
not exercise, with reasonable competence in a given case, the skill which he did possess. It was held not
to be necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch in which
he practices.

17. Name of the case – Mrs. Swapnil Mishra vs Pushpanjali Healthcare

Year of the case – 27th May, 2019

Principle – A doctor cannot be allowed to misguide the patient just for earning money. He said that a
doctor is also not expected to make the patient scared.

18. Name of the case – Smt Saroj Sharma vs Government Of National Capital

Year of the case – 28th May, 2019

Principle – The grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is
based on the principle of restitution in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to
damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position
as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.

19. Name of the case – Smt. Savitri Devi W/O Khani Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru Home Secy.

Year of the case – 30th May, 2019

Principle – Evidential principle intended to assist a claimant who, for no fault of his own, is unable to
adduce evidence as to how the accident occurred. Where the thing is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

20. Name of the case – Pankaj R. Toprani & 3 Ors. vs Bombay Hospital And Research & Medical & 2
Ors.

Year of the case – 11th July, 2019

Principle – A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly
undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose,

1. He owes a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, 

2. He owes a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give and, 

3. He owes a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties
gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.

21. Tara Chand Jain vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital And Anr on 15 December,
2005
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25th August, 1999 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short 'the Commission'). The
appellant made a claim for compensation alleging that on the ground of medical negligence on
the part of the respondents, he had suffered untold miseries and had spent a huge amount of
money to get cured without any avail.

The background facts disclosed in the complaint were to the effect that the appellant visited the
respondent No. 1 - hospital as he was having urinary trouble. The respondent No. 2 with his team
examined the complainant and advised him to undergo prostate operation. The complainant was
admitted in the hospital on 10.01.1990 and was operated by respondent No. 2 on 11.01.1990. He
was discharged from the hospital on 15.01.1990. At the time of discharge, he was advised to take
some medicines and was told that he would be perfectly normal within one or two months. The
complainant returned to his native place, i.e. Muzaffarnagar and duly followed the advise given
and the treatments prescribed. Instead of getting relief, he started feeling acute pain in the thigh
muscles and backbone. The tendency of continuous and regular flow of urine which had started
immediately after the operation continued. He suffered high fever and increase in blood urea and
as a result, his condition become very serious. He was again hospitalized in respondent No. 1's
hospital on 17.11.1990 in the Nephrology department and was discharged on 13.12.1990.
Despite the medicines prescribed the problem of continuous urine flow was not cured. The
respondents had advised that he should take the injection "Teflon", which was not available in
India and was available in America. The complainant wrote to a relative who lived in America
for sending the injection. But the relative who happened to be a Doctor, advised the complainant
not to take the injection as it had bad side effects and also not of much use in such cases. The
complainant visited the hospital on a number of occasions but his problem continued. Same was
due to the negligent acts on the part of respondent No. 2. Though the appellant was advised to
use clamp all the time so that the urine may not flow but it was so painful to use the clamp that
even after the use of clamp, there was no further development. Reference was made to the Text
book of Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery, 16th Edition, pages 1196 and 1197 to
contend that the negligence of the respondents was established. Under these circumstances, the
complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) on account of
deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

22. P.G.Inst.Of Medical Education & ... vs Jaspal Singh & Ors on 29 May,
2009.