Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a plea alleging medical negligence against a doctor, underlining that prosecution of medical professionals requires expert opinion and adherence to the Supreme Court’s “Jacob Mathew” guidelines.
Case Background
- The petitioner claimed that his son died due to negligence at Ashish Hospital, Jabalpur, after undergoing surgery for kidney stones in January 2022.
- Allegations included conducting surgery despite the patient’s high blood pressure and failing to provide emergency care during a cardiac arrest.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Negligence Claim: Surgery was performed despite high blood pressure, which was deemed inappropriate and negligent.
- Suspicious Conduct: The petitioner pointed to discrepancies in ECG reports, including differing IDs and times.
- Grievance Escalation: He approached authorities, leading to an inquiry by an expert medical committee.
Expert Committee Findings
- The committee, including a Master of Surgery (General Surgery), concluded:
- Surgery was conducted following medical science standards, with all emergency equipment and drugs available.
- The laparoscopic procedure was successful, and the patient showed no post-operative complaints.
- Discrepancies in ECG IDs and timing were attributed to the hospital’s internal processes.
Court Observations and Judgment
- Expert Opinion is Key:
- The Court reiterated that negligence or rashness by doctors must be substantiated through expert evaluation.
- Jacob Mathew Precedent:
- The Court emphasized the Supreme Court’s directive that prosecution of medical professionals should not proceed without a prima facie case backed by expert opinion.
- The “Bolam Test” was upheld as the standard for evaluating medical negligence.
- Police Limitations:
- Police authorities cannot act mechanically or proceed without understanding the medical context, diagnosis, or treatment provided.
- Burden of Proof:
- The petitioner failed to prove negligence or rashness in the surgery, as required under the Jacob Mathew judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Medical Negligence Claims: Must be supported by expert reports and demonstrate deviation from established medical protocols.
- Prosecution Safeguards for Doctors: Ensures that frivolous or unfounded allegations do not unduly burden medical professionals.
- Legal Precedents: Reinforce the importance of medical expertise in assessing negligence claims.
The High Court dismissed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner did not meet the legal burden to establish culpability against the medical professionals involved.
