CLAT 2024 Passage 5 by Career Leaders | Dec 7, 2023 | 0 comments “As a matter of fact, when a patient is admitted to the highly commercial hospital … a thorough check up of the patient is done by the hospital authorities, it is the Institute which selects after the examination of the patient that he suffers from what malady and who is the best doctor who can attend, except when the patient or the family members desire to be treated by a particular doctor or the surgeon as the case may be. Normally, the private hospitals have a panel of doctors in various specialities and it is they who choose who is to be called. It is very difficult for the patient to give any detail that which doctor treated the patient and whether the doctor was negligent or the nursing staff was negligent. It is very difficult for such patient or his relatives to implead them as parties in the claim petition…We cannot place such a heavy burden on the patient or the family members/relatives to implead all those doctors who have treated the patient or the nursing staff to be impleaded as party. It will be a difficult task for the patient or his relatives to undertake this searching enquiry from the hospital and sometimes hospital may not co-operate. It may give such details and sometimes may not give the details... The burden cannot be placed on the patient to implead all those treating doctors or the attending staff of the hospital as a party so as to substantiate his claim. Once a patient is admitted in a hospital it is the responsibility of the Hospital to provide the best service and if it is not, then hospital cannot take shelter under the technical ground that the concerned surgeon or the nursing staff, as the case may be, was not impleaded, therefore, the claim should be rejected on the basis of non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, once a claim petition is filed and the claimant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the hospital was negligent, as a result of such negligence the patient died, then in that case the burden lies on the hospital and the concerned doctor who treated that patient that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. Since the burden is on the hospital, they can discharge the same by producing that doctor who treated the patient in defence to substantiate their allegation that there was no negligence. In fact, it is the hospital who engages the treating doctor thereafter it is their responsibility. The burden is greater on the Institution/ hospital than that of the claimant.” [Extracted from Smt. Savita Garg v. The Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56]. 1. Negligence, as a tort, is said to have been committed when the following is/are established: None of the above. The existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; and that there is a failure to attain that standard of care, as prescribed by the law, thereby, committing a breach of such duty. Both (A) and (B). Damage, which is both causally connected with such breach and recognised by the law, has been suffered by the complainant. None 2. Which of the following propositions is incorrect as regards negligence? A professional may be held liable for negligence, and the standard to be applied forjudging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices; a highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence. The jurisprudential concept of negligence is the same in civil and criminal laws, and what may be negligence in civil law is necessarily a negligence in criminal law. The test for determining medical negligence, as laid down in Bolam’s case [Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 1 WLR 582], holds good in its applicability in India. None 3. Which of the following propositions is correct as regards the liability of medical practitioners: Medical practitioners are immune from a claim for damages on the ground of negligence, as they are governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Medical practitioners are immune from a claim for damages on the ground of negligence, as the Ethics and Medical Registration Board has the power to regulate professional conduct and promote medical ethics. Medical practitioners are immune from a claim for damages on the ground of negligence, as they belong to the medical profession. Medical practitioners, though belonging to the medical profession, are not immune from a claim for damages on the ground of negligence. None 4. Which of the following is a seminal judgment on medical negligence in India? M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. All the above. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929. None 5. Now, a large number of private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics have emerged. In view of the good reputation they have built, patients go there for treatment in large numbers. These hospitals provide the medical treatment to those patients through doctors employed by them or by doctors who work there on some arrangement. These hospitals raise the bills for the fees and medical treatment provided to those patients by all such doctors. In such circumstances, if the patient suffers injury due to negligence of the doctors, then: The hospitals would be equally liable for damages, on the principles of vicarious liability or on the principles analogous to vicarious liability, and these hospitals cannot shove off their responsibility and liability to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the patients due to the negligence of the doctors provided by these very hospitals. Neither the hospitals nor the doctors are held liable, as no one can guarantee the desired result in the medical profession The hospitals would not at all be held liable for damages; but the doctors could not shove off their liability for negligence. The hospitals would not at all be held liable for damages. None Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.