Medical Negligence

The case was first commissioned and ordered appellant or the original opposite party (OP), Arvind Shah to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment and costs of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant or respondent, Kamlaben Kushwaha. The complainant claimed that the OP did not take due care while treating the son of the complainant, Prakash, who as a result succumbed to death. The appellant thus, appeals to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi challenging the order delivered by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The major concepts highlighted in the case is medical negligence and failure to provide basic information about the treatment to the patient. The court, however, held that the doctor should seek consent from the patient before his treatment and provide him with adequate information related to his treatment.

The adequate information provided by the doctor should possibly mention the following points:

• The nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits, and effect.
• Alternatives if any available.
• An overview of the substantial risks.
• Adverse effects of refusing treatment.

The Singapore court said that the Bolam standard was doctor centred as it focused upon whether a responsible body of medical opinion would have given the advice in question. The need to obtain a patient’s informed consent to medical treatment, however, arose from the central principle that the patient had autonomy to decide such matters. In recognition of this, the Court concluded it was necessary to move towards a more patient-centric standard of disclosure. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ,a landmark case in the UK also determined that the adequacy of disclosure was to be judged from the perspective of the patient, rather than from the perspective of clinicians.