The Supreme Court on Friday said a doctor can be held liable for negligence only when there was no requisite qualification and skill, or a failure to exercise reasonable expertise during treatment.  A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said when reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, was extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary was proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.

“A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment,” the Bench  said. The SC made the observations while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held a doctor negligent.

According to the complainant, their minor son was diagnosed with a congenital disorder in his left eye which required a minor surgery, which was performed in 1996 by one Dr Neeraj Sud at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

The complainant alleged the physical deformity diagnosed on their son could have been cured by a minor operation as there was no other defect in the boy’s eyes. The procedure, it was stated, required slightly lifting the left eyelid and making a correction in comparison with the right eye.

The doctor, however, was accused of botching up the procedure, which deteriorated the boy’s condition post-surgery. The complainant, therefore, alleged medical negligence against Dr Sud and the PGIMER which was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2005. Aggrieved by the above decision, the complainants preferred an appeal before the NCDRC.

The NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s verdict and held the doctor and the hospital were “jointly and severely liable” for paying a compensation of Rs 3 lakh and Rs 50,000 towards the negligence in treatment. Dr Sud and the PGIMER filed an appeal challenging the NCDRC order in the top court.

The SC observed the complainants hadn’t brought any evidence for it to establish negligence on the part of Dr Sud or the PGIMER. The Bench  noted the deterioration of the patient’s condition post-surgery was not necessarily indicative of the surgery being improper or inappropriate. The SC said since the complainants have failed to prove any negligence on part of the doctor or the PGI, they were not entitled to any compensation.