'Not negligence if one dissatisfied with medical care': Delhi High Court rejects man's plea over wife's death

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently rejected a man's plea seeking action against doctors over his wife's death and said medical negligence was not merely established by dissatisfaction towards an expected standard of care.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, in his December 20 verdict, said doctors should not be constrained either by the expectations or timelines set by the patient's family.

"It is paramount to remember that medical negligence is not established by mere dissatisfaction or the assertion of an 'expected' standard of care..It is acknowledged that doctors are expected to apply a reasonable level of expertise and exercise due diligence in their practices..The proper criterion for determining medical negligence lies in assessing whether the actions of the doctor fall below the accepted standards of a reasonably competent practitioner within the relevant field," the judge said.

The man's wife died in 2016 allegedly owing to the medical negligence of certain doctors at a private hospital.

The court observed while doctors were bound to prioritise the well-being of the patient and to administer the most appropriate treatment, they should not be constrained by the expectations or timelines set by the patient’s family.

"While the petitioner may have preferred quicker actions, the doctors had to assess a critically unstable patient, manage immediate crises, and prioritise interventions according to clinical necessity, not family expectations," the court said.

A doctor, the judge said, cannot be deemed negligent if they discharged their duties with reasonable skill and competence and they must be guided by medical necessity and professional judgment.

The petitioner's allegations pertained to three doctors besides the delay in administration of drugs and tests besides unavailability of a senior doctor and drug overdose.

The plea therefore sought a direction to the National Medical Commission (NMC) to punish them for medical and professional negligence to the fullest extent possible, including removing their names from the rolls.

While the court sympathised with the petitioner’s loss, it said the Delhi Medical Council and NMC had considered his complaint, and determined certain shortcomings on part of two other doctors while directing they underwent training, but refrained from taking action against the ones named in the plea.

The court therefore couldn't reassess the conclusions of expert bodies in matters such as medical negligence and in the absence of palpable perversity or illegality, it found no ground to interference with their decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution.