Of all other occupations in India, the medical field is one of the most honourable. The doctor is like God to a patient. God is also faultless. But the patient believes that. In truth, medical professionals are people. However, human error is common. A mistake can be made by doctors. Physicians might act carelessly. The support team might be irresponsible. Two careless actions could result in a much greater issue. The cause can be egregious neglect. Everything is conceivable. Identification of the negligent party and the circumstances surrounding their negligence are crucial in this situation.
The Supreme Court distinguished between negligence, haste, and recklessness in this instance. When a person unintentionally violates a positive responsibility and fails to perform one that they should have, this is referred to as negligence. A careless person is aware of the consequences of her or his actions, but she or he foolishly believes that they won't happen as a result of her or his deed. Any behaviour that is not reckless or intentional wrongdoing should not be punished criminally.
Hence, in order to be criminally liable for a patient's death, a doctor must be shown to have been careless or incompetent, with such a disregard for the patient's safety and life that it amounted to a crime against the State.
- On July 4th, 1992, Respondent No. 1, Ashwin Patel, an authorised homoeopath, kept Pramod Verma under observation and administered some allopathic medications for viral fever for two days, i.e. up until July 6th, 1992, but even after these medications Ashwin Patel's condition didn't improve so Respondent No. 1 shifted the prescription drugs from viral fever to typhoid fever because in accordance.
- Respondent No. 1 completed a four-year programme in homoeopathic medicine and surgery. After passing the examination held by the homoeopathic medical college in Anand, Gujarat, he was given a diploma in the field, and as a result, he was authorised to practise medicine in 1983. In the beginning, he joined a private nursing home in Bombay where he allegedly served as Chief Medical Officer from 1983 until he established his own private clinic and began practising medicine privately in 1989.
- Even so, Ashwin Patel's condition continued to worsen, so on July 12, 1992, Respondent No. 1 requested that the appellant transfer Ashwin Patel to the Sanjeevani Maternity and General Nursing Home, which was run by Dr. Rajeev Warty, Respondent No. 2.
- He stayed there until July 14, 1992, when he was brought in unconscious to Hinduja Hospital, where he passed away four and a half hours after being admitted. In accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, Medical Council Act, and Maharashtra Medical Council Act, the Appellant thereafter filed a petition with the National Consumer Disputes Redresser Commission in New Delhi.
- When Pramod Verma was first admitted to the nursing home, Respondent No. 2 is accused of negligence for starting an intravenous glucose (dextrose) drip without first doing a straightforward blood test to check his blood sugar level. Although Respondent No. 2 continued to reassure the appellant that Pramod Verma would soon recover and there was no need to transfer him to a hospital with superior equipment, it was claimed that this was the main cause of the continual and steady deterioration of Pramod Verma's condition. Nonetheless, Pramod Verma was transferred to Hinduja Hospital that evening on the recommendation of Respondent No. 2, even though he was already unconscious.
- She argued that he passed away as a result of the doctors' incompetence. The Supreme Court was subsequently consulted in this matter.
Whether Respondent No. 1's treatment of Pramod Verma constituted an actionable negligence and whether there was a breach of the duty of care.
- In this instance, the respondent was a homoeopathic physician who gave a patient a prescription for an allopathic drug. The patient passed away as a result of the treatment's failure to work. The respondent was ruled to be a homoeopath and was therefore prohibited by law from writing allopathic prescriptions. The respondent was deemed insignificant and required to compensate the party who had been wronged.
- The Supreme Court recognised impulsivity, recklessness, and carelessness. A careless person is one who unintentionally abuses a positive obligation and offers an example of oversight. A careless individual is aware of the results yet foolishly believes that because of their behaviour, they won't occur. Although a fool is aware of the results, she or he could care less whether they were the result of their behaviour. Any obvious omission including folly and willful poor behaviour shouldn't be the subject of criminal prosecution. Guards for professionals held accountable for the criminal responsibility are found in Sections 80 and 88 of the Indian Legal Code.
- Nothing that occurs accidentally, by accident, without any criminal intent or knowledge while carrying out a lawful demonstration in a thoroughly legal manner using lawful means and with the appropriate care and attention is considered to have occurred in violation of Section 80 (mishap in carrying out a legitimate demonstration).
- According to Section 88, a person cannot be held accountable for an offence if they carry out a sign in accordance with some fundamental honesty for the benefit of the other, don't attempt to hurt them even if there is a risk, and the patient has clearly or verifiably given their consent. Pramod Verma, who was 35 years old, received a salary of Rs. 5,700 a month.
- He passed away at an early age, depriving his dependents—the wife, two children, and old folks—of the income they were receiving. According to the law, they are entitled to compensation. Pramod Verma, who was 35 years old, received a salary of Rs. 5,700 a month. He passed away at an early age, depriving his dependents—the wife, two children, and old folks—of the income they were receiving. According to the law, they are entitled to compensation.
- The court outlined the distinction between negligence and other types of behaviour. A person who disregards a positive responsibility and commits an act of omission is negligent. In this case, even though he has no physical location where he practises the Allopathic system of medicine, the doctor Mr. Patel was careless in his actions by using it as part of the proper course of treatment. In addition to the current, the court also acknowledges the connection between the doctor's criminal accountability for the same and his or her negligent treatment-related activities.
In this case, the court made a distinction between negligence and other behaviour. A person who disregards a positive responsibility and commits an act of omission is negligent. In this situation, even though he doesn't actually have a place to practise the Allopathic system of medicine, the doctor Mr. Patel was careless in his actions by using it as part of the proper course of treatment. A person is considered to have committed medical negligence if they practise a particular medical system while being ignorant of it. This can help us understand how the term "medical negligence" is used in discussions today.
Few would disagree that misconduct must be dealt with brutally in the medical sector, just like it must be in every other profession. Judges don't try to impose their own intelligence on others, and the law doesn't try to impose any unnecessary restrictions on a field that legitimately includes only clinical professionals. The legal framework does not adopt a completely hands-off approach either; it looks into the actions of a clinical expert and attempts to disqualify those who fall below the minimum standard. The test for establishing the minimum standard is also significantly influenced by the widespread clinical practises and conclusions, as well as the variety of data available as of the crucial date.