Case Commentry On Balram Prasad V. Kunal Saha

INTRODUCTION

Medical negligence has turn out to be one of the solemn issues in India. It effects in death of the patient or complete/partial impairment or any other misery which has contrary effects on the patient’s health. It is really a serious distress for the complete nation that 10 people fall victim to medical negligence every minute and more than 11 people expire every hour in nation due to this medical error. The carelessness of the doctors or medical authorities is the essential reason behind medical negligence. The term ‘Medical negligence’ consists of two words – medical and negligence. Negligence is solely the failure to exercise reasonable care. Medical negligence is no different. It is only that, in case of medical negligence, the doctor is the defendant.

It can be defined as the improper or unskilled treatment of a patient by medical practitioner. In due course a standard care is expected from the doctor to give premedication regarding certain infectious diseases. If a doctor fails to do so due to which a patient suffers from some infection which can cause a lot of harm or even death in adverse cases, the doctor is said to have committed medical negligence or malpractice.

Some examples of medical negligence are:

• Improper administration of medicines.
• Performing the wrong or inappropriate type of surgery.
• Not giving proper medical advice.
• Leaving any foreign object in the body of the patient such as a sponge or bandage, etc. after the surgery.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Anuradha, a child psychologist with her husband Kunal saha who is familiarized to the U.S. arrived in Kolkata for a trip on 1^st April 1998. Anuradha developed fever together with skin rash on 25^th April and had consulted Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, on 26^th April, as per the approved medicines Depo-mendol injection 80 mg twice a day (a step that specialist later faulted at the apex court) she got injected with the first dose of injection by him. After overseeing the injection. Anuradha’s condition get worse rapidly. So, she was admitted to AMRI on 11^th May where Dr. Mukherjee re-examined Mrs. Saha and gave some other doses of injection before departing her for the U.S. but after some days the skin rash seemed more aggressively, large sheets of the skin of Mrs. Saha has parted from her back and limbs. On 17^th May 1998, Dr. Saha evacuated his wife to Mumbai by air ambulance as her disorder worsened. Doctors noticed green patches on her back. On 28^th May 1998, Anuradha Saha departed due to TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS (TEN) a life-threating skin

condition that sources peeling and blistering of skin.

On 9^th March 1999, Kunal Saha, the husband of the late Anuradha Saha filed a criminal case and civil suits in several courts across the nation on the foot of medical negligence.

In 2000, he filed a complaint before NCRDC counter to the BREACH CANDY HOSPITAL and its doctors. This complaint was withdrawn later in2003.

On 1^st June 2006, the local commissioner discharged the complaint on the bottom that doctors and surgeons are not always predictable to cure the patient as there can be situations where the condition of the patient is out there the control of the medical experts.

A civil appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The Civil and Criminal appeal was heard by the Supreme court of the said case together for speedy and comprehensive analysis.

The court rejected the criminal appeal but allowed the civil appeal thereby set aside the order of the commission and remanded the case to the commission for the purpose of suitable compensation.

Later in 2013, the supreme court found Dr. Mukherjee, Dr. Prasad, Dr. Harder and AMRI hospital were inattentive in civil cases and asked them to compensate about 60.8 million rupees because of the composite financial situations of Dr. Saha, the pain his wife has undergone, the doctors loss of income and his legal expenditures but their license didn’t cancel and in a while Dr. Mukherjee became chief advisor of the HEALTH MINISTRY Of West Bengal and other practicing in the top hospitals of city which made Dr. Saha file a appeal under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution .

In his petition before NCDRC (National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission), had imposed a record of Rs. 77 crores as compensation to saha for his wife’s death, NCDRC had held the U.S. doctor responsible for contributing to the three Kolkata doctors. The hospital’s negligence ordered a 10% reduction in the amount of compensation, making it Rs. 1.55 crore.

ISSUES BEFORE COURT:

• Whether the West Bengal clinical establishment act 2017 have a niche of removal of member of committee which require instant interference of judiciary to the subject matter.
• Whether a foreigner petitioner PIL are often entertained within the court.
• Did such omission as the part of the doctor’s amount to an instance of the negligence?
• Will the case set a precedent?
• Whether the individuals below personal income would be valued and priced at the speed at which they contribute to the society.
• Whether Anuradha was employed at the time of her death?

Elements of Negligence

• Duty
• Breach
• Cause in fact
• Proximate cause
• Harm

A Duty of care to patients is included in Health care hospital. So the value of care fell below rational standards, this is termed the breach of duty. That a person is billed in a duty of care. As there was a breach of duty of care and there of the person suffered preventable harm.

ARGUMENTS:

On 9.2.2010, the experienced senior attorney representing the claimant pleaded for the application’s withdrawal, saying that he would submit another suitable application. The claimant then filed M.A. No. 200 of 2010 on 22.2.2010 to ask the National Commission to grant him permission to produce the affidavits and reports of four international experts. A special leave petition (No. 15070/2010) was filed before this Court in response to the National Commission’s dismissal of the same by order dated 26.4.2010, but it was afterwards withdrawn. The claimant once more submitted M.A. No.594 of 2010 to the National Commission in order to have four foreign experts examined via video conference in order to support his claim at the expense of the appellant-doctors and the Hospital. By order dated 6.9.2010, the National Commission denied the claimant’s request to consult with foreign experts. In opposition to this ruling, the claimant filed SLP (C) No. 3173 of 2011 with the court, asking for permission to interview two foreign experts, Prof. John F. Burke Jr. and Prof. John Broughton, via video conference. He also agreed to cover the costs associated with the interview. Additionally, a further $1,258,421.00 in service loss was incurred from a domestic perspective. The knowledgeable attorneys representing the doctors and AMRI Hospital interrogated the abovementioned witness in cross-examination.

The claimant, on the other hand, heavily relied on the testimony of the economist Prof. John F. Burke to establish the deceased’s income as of the date of her death and her real income if she had lived to be 70 years old. He also questioned Prof. John Broughton in support of his claim.

JUDGEMENT:

The Final Judgment was that, the National Commission has rejected the entire claim on the sole ground that since the additional claim was not pleaded earlier, none of the claims made by the claimant can be considered.

Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Haldar are liable to pay 10 lakhs each and Dr. Balram Prasad is held liable to pay compensation of 5 lakhs to the claimant. The AMRI hospital and above doctors are to recompense within eight weeks. The National Commission is asked to deduct 10% of awarded amount of compensation on basis on contributory negligence is set aside by enhancing the compensation Rs. 1,34,66,000/- to Rs. 6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest annum from date of complaint to date of payment to claimant.  The compensation should be paid to the claimant, within eight weeks and submit the compliance report.

ANALYSIS:

This is a landmark judgement in medical negligence and the first judgement that comes into mind with highest amount of compensation granted till date. The court focused on Article 21 and said that healthy life is a fundamental right and negligence causing an injury to that right without the standard duty of care is actionable. The request of National Commission for a 10% deduction in claim rather increased it and made a breakthrough in medical negligence cases and setting an example that skilled professionals can too be negligent to great level and therefore cannot be covered under the degree of duty of care.”

Table of Cases

Author: Sana Janbandhu, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing