08-07-2005, 08:07 PM
<b>UK rule model for doctors</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->UK rule model for doctors
R. VENKATARAMAN
New Delhi, Aug. 5: A doctor cannot be sent to jail just because he failed to show the highest professional skill. But he can be if he fails to do what any âordinarily prudent and reasonableâ doctor would have done.
Holding up this judgment of a British court (Bolamâs case, 1957) as the standard, the Supreme Court today laid down, for the first time in India, a clear criterion to decide criminal negligence by a physician or surgeon.
âIt is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practisesâ¦. That cannot be made the basis or the yardstick,â a three-judge bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan said.
âIt 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.
âHence, the test for determining medical negligence as laid down in the UKâs Bolamâs case holds good in its applicability in India.â<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why to refer British case in free India?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a case against a certain Dr Suresh Gupta, a division bench had ruled that the alleged negligence in criminal cases â as opposed to civil negligence cases where a doctor may be asked to pay compensation but cannot be jailed â must be âgrossâ.
But another division bench disagreed on the ground that the IPC provisions dealing with criminal negligence didnât contain the word âgrossâ.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its very difficult to get judgement against Doctors in India.
R. VENKATARAMAN
New Delhi, Aug. 5: A doctor cannot be sent to jail just because he failed to show the highest professional skill. But he can be if he fails to do what any âordinarily prudent and reasonableâ doctor would have done.
Holding up this judgment of a British court (Bolamâs case, 1957) as the standard, the Supreme Court today laid down, for the first time in India, a clear criterion to decide criminal negligence by a physician or surgeon.
âIt is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practisesâ¦. That cannot be made the basis or the yardstick,â a three-judge bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan said.
âIt 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.
âHence, the test for determining medical negligence as laid down in the UKâs Bolamâs case holds good in its applicability in India.â<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why to refer British case in free India?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a case against a certain Dr Suresh Gupta, a division bench had ruled that the alleged negligence in criminal cases â as opposed to civil negligence cases where a doctor may be asked to pay compensation but cannot be jailed â must be âgrossâ.
But another division bench disagreed on the ground that the IPC provisions dealing with criminal negligence didnât contain the word âgrossâ.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its very difficult to get judgement against Doctors in India.