Download PDF
Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2014; 11(02): 126-133
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnt.2014.11.005
Review Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Medical negligence: Indian scenario

Sanjay Kumar Gupta
a   Associate Professor (Surgery) and Consultant Neurosurgeon, Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur, India
,
P.K. Padhi
b   Professor (Business Law), Xavier Labour Research Institute, Jamshedpur, India
,
Narendra Chouhan
c   Consultant Intensivist, Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur, India
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

08 June 2014

11 November 2014

Publication Date:
06 April 2017 (online)

  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Medical profession differentiates itself from other professions, where apart from the knowledge and skill, touch of humanity is also required. Since the inclusion of medical profession under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act there has been a spurt in the number of cases against the doctors. Bolam's test is applied to assess medical negligence of doctor. Cases against the doctors can be brought in a civil or criminal court, and accordingly the negligence may be civil or criminal negligence. In deciding criminal negligence against doctors criminal intent need to be proved. The Medical Law and Ethical Code for medical professional in India are prescribed by Indian Medical Council, under the section 20-A of Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 and Amendment Act No. 24 of 1964.

Keywords

Medical negligence - Consumer protection act - Civil negligence - Criminal negligence
 

  • References

  • 1 Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha. 1995 (6) SCC 651.
    PubMed
  • 2 CIR V Maxse. 1919, 12 TC 41 on page 61.
    PubMed
  • 3 Dr. A.S. Chandra V. Union of India. 1992, 1 Andhra Law Times 713.
    PubMed
  • 4 Dr.C.S. Subramanian V. Kumarasamy & Anr. 1994, 1 MLJ 438.
    PubMed
  • 5 Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel &. Ors. 1996, 4 SCC 332.
    PubMed
  • 6 Lanphier and Wife V. Phipos. 1873, 173 E.R 581.
    PubMed
  • 7 Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee. 1957, 1WLR 582 i.
    PubMed
  • 8 WhiteHouse v. Jordan. 1981, 1 All ER 267 (HL).
    PubMed
  • 9 Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority. 1985, 1 All ER 635 (HL).
    PubMed
  • 10 Sidaway V. Gethlem Royal Hospital. 1985, 1 All ER 643 (HL).
    PubMed
  • 11 Chin Keow V. Govt. of Malaysia. 1967, 1 WLR 813 (PC).
    PubMed
  • 12 Laxman Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Another AIR. 1969. SC 128.
    PubMed
  • 13 Eckersley V. Binnie. 1988, 18 Con.L.R. 1, 79.
    PubMed
  • 14 Roe V Minister of Health. 1954, 2 WLR 915 Court of Appeal.
    PubMed
  • 15 Hunter Vs. Hanley. 1955. SLT 213.
    PubMed
  • 16 Samira Kohli V. Dr. Prabha Manchanda. 2008, 2 SCC 1.
    PubMed
  • 17 Vinitha Ashok Vs. Lakshmi Hospital. 2001 (8) SCC 731.
    PubMed
  • 18 A.S. Mittal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. JT. 1989 (2) SC 419, 1989 (3) SCC 223.
    PubMed
  • 19 Patch V. Board of Governers United Bristol Hospital. 1959. cited in Modi's Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd edition, 1999, page 706.
    PubMed
  • 20 Spring Medows Hospital & Another Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia Thr' K.S. Ahluwalia & Another. 1998. CPJ 1.
    PubMed
  • 21 Wood v. Thurston (1953-1-C.L.C. 6781), Cited by Tamilnadu State Commission in M. Arunachala Vadivel & Ors. Vs. Dr. N Gopalakrishnan, II. 1992. CPJ 764, decided on 8.7.1992.
    PubMed
  • 22 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92. Schloendorff V. Society of New York Hospital. 1914.
    PubMed
  • 23 Salgo v. Leland Stanfordetc.Bd. Trustee, 154, cal. App 2d560.
    PubMed
  • 24 Principles of Medical Law (published by Oxford University Press – Second Edition, edited by Andrew Grubb, Para 3.04, Page 133) 2.
    PubMed
  • 25 Dr.Thomas V. Smt. Elisa, Kerala High Court, AIR. 1987.
    PubMed
  • 26 Mayne's “Criminal Law of India” 26 by S, Swaminathan 4th Edn. – At page 198.
    PubMed
  • 27 Dr. Suresh Gupta Vs. Government of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Another AIR. 2004. SC 4091.
    PubMed
  • 28 Jacob Mathew V/s State of Punjab, AIR. 2005. SUPREME COURT 3180.
    PubMed