LI Network
Published on: 01 October 2023 at 12:15 IST
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the application of the legal principle known as “res ipsa loquitur” in the context of medical negligence cases. This principle, which means “the thing speaks for itself,” places the burden of proof on the hospital or medical practitioners when negligence is apparent.
The Supreme Court upheld this principle while awarding Rs 1.5 crore in compensation to a former Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital.
Also Read: What is Medico-Legal work? What is the procedure to be followed?
The court determined that the appellant’s condition was a direct consequence of the negligence displayed by the two hospital establishments, which resulted in the transfusion of HIV-positive infected blood.
The foundational facts necessary to apply res ipsa loquitur were convincingly proven, and the respondents failed to demonstrate that they exercised due care and complied with the relevant standards. Consequently, the court held the respondents liable for compensating the appellant for his injuries.
Both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force were jointly and severally held accountable for medical negligence in this case.
The bench, consisting of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, heard an appeal against a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that denied the compensation sought by the Air Veteran.
The Court began by citing Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (14th Ed. 2018) to define res ipsa loquitur as a case that “calls for some answer from the defendant and will arise upon proof of:
1. The occurrence of an unexplained event;
2. An event that would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence by someone other than the claimant; and
3. Circumstances that indicate the defendant’s negligence rather than that of any other party.”
The Court referred to several prior judgments, including V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010), which emphasized that when negligence is evident, “the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies, and the complainant does not need to prove anything as the situation itself speaks for negligence.”
In such cases, it becomes the responsibility of the respondent to demonstrate that they have exercised due care and fulfilled their duty to refute the charge of negligence.
The Court emphasized the importance of applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases, citing the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences case (2009). It stated that once the complainant has demonstrated negligence on the part of the hospital or doctors, the burden shifts to the hospital or attending doctors to prove the absence of negligence.
Additionally, the Court referred to the Savita Garg case (2004), which established that once evidence is presented indicating that a patient suffered due to a lack of care, the burden shifts to the hospital to justify the absence of negligence.
However, the Court cautioned against relying solely on res ipsa loquitur to assign liability, as highlighted in the cases of Martin F. D’Souza (2009) and Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre v Asha Jaiswal 2021. In Asha Jaiswal’s case, the court clarified that “the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not require the raising of any presumption of law shifting the burden to the defendant. It merely allows the drawing of a permissive inference of fact based on the circumstances of the accident.”
In conclusion, the court held the respondents liable to compensate the appellant for his injuries, which would be determined in monetary terms.