LAWS(J&K)-2002-6-7

SATYA ATRI Vs. SHASHI SHARMA

Decided On June 14, 2002
SATYA ATRI Appellant
V/S
SHASHI SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proverbial "needle of suspicion" in this case ultimately turned out to be a curved foreign body which stood lodged in the system of the respondent. She had undergone a caesarean operation on 1st Oct., 1998. Thereafter she complained of pain. She was examined by the appellant-doctor. It was noticed that respondent was complaining of pain and irritation in the lower abdominal region which was described as vague. The respondent got herself X-rayed. Ultra sound and CT Scanning was also got done. It was found that a foreign body stood lodged in her system. This foreign body stands removed. It is for this, the damages were claimed. The damages have been allowed. Appellants in these appeals seek reversal of the order passed by the State Commission.

(2.) A person who holds himself out as ready to give medical advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Whether or not he is a registered medical practitioner, such a person who is consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, namely a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, a duty of care in his administration of that treatment and a duty of care in answering a question put to him by a patient in circumstances in which he knows that the patient intends to rely on his answer. A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient." The aforementioned statement of law has been quoted from Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 30 Fourth Edition, page 31 paragraph 34. With regard to the degree of skill and care required from a medical practitioner, what is said in paragraph 35 can also be quoted with advantage. This is being quoted :

(3.) Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it must be shown (i) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care.