Published on: 02 September 2023 at 12:24 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Laxman Balkrishna Joshi (Dr.) V. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a Doctor is bound by the following duties towards a patient. A breach of any of these duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may, on that basis, recover damages from his doctor.
- Duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
- Duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and
- Duty of care in the administration of that treatment.
11. The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.
The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires (cf. Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Edn. Vol. 26 p. 17).
The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency. But the question is not whether the judgment or discretion in choosing the treatment be exercised was right or wrong, for, as Mr Purshottam rightly agreed, no such question arises in the present case because if we come to the same conclusion as the High Court viz. that what the appellant did was to reduce the fracture without giving anaesthetic to the boy, there could be no manner of doubt of his being guilty of negligence and carelessness. He also said that he was not pressing the question whether in this action filed under the Fatal Accidents Act (13 of 1858) the respondents would be entitled to get damages.
The question, therefore, is within a small compass, namely, whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court that what the appellant did was reduction of the fracture without giving anaesthetic to the boy and not mere immobilisation with light traction as was his case, is based on evidence or is the result of mere conjecture or surmises or of misunderstanding of that evidence.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
