New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that allegations of medical negligence cannot be substantiated based solely on dissatisfaction or claims of unmet “expected standards of care.” Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, emphasized that evidence must demonstrate a clear failure by the doctor to meet the competence level expected in comparable situations.
The case involved a petition against two doctors from Max Super Specialty Hospital, Delhi, accusing them of negligence leading to the death of a woman diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and haematemesis in October 2016. The petitioner alleged that administering 850mcg of fentanyl in a short period was dangerous and caused the patient’s death due to poisoning.
Contrasting Findings by Medical Authorities
- Delhi Medical Council (DMC): Found the doctors guilty of professional negligence and issued a warning. It also mandated at least one month of emergency medicine training for them at a recognized hospital.
- National Medical Commission (NMC): Reviewed the same case and found no substantial evidence of negligence. After examining detailed records, including dosage calculations and the patient’s health status, NMC ruled that the doctors’ actions were consistent with the patient’s complex medical needs.
The petitioner contested the NMC’s findings, challenging its decision in court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Narula noted that the court must defer to the expertise of medical bodies unless their findings are arbitrary or perverse. The NMC’s conclusions, backed by a thorough peer review, outweighed the DMC’s initial findings.
The court observed that:
- Reasonable Diligence: Doctors are required to act with reasonable care, not necessarily to meet all expectations or guarantee specific outcomes.
- Weight of Expert Review: Findings from expert medical panels hold significant importance unless evidence demonstrates palpable perversity or unlawfulness.
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that:
- There was no substantial evidence to support the allegations of negligence.
- The NMC’s detailed peer-reviewed findings were credible and consistent with the patient’s complex medical profile.
- Emotional distress, while understandable, cannot replace concrete proof in claims of medical negligence.
“While the court empathizes with the petitioner’s loss, it reiterates that the determinations of medical experts must be respected unless proven otherwise,” the judgment concluded.
