lack of treating the patient reasonably as per the standards on behalf of the doctor. Law does not imply that every practitioner should cure the infection or disease of the patient but law expects him to perform his actions reasonable enough for general standards in the perfect knowledge of the practitioner. For instance, it is unreasonable to expect from an optometrist to operate upon a patient having hearing impairment.
Whether criminal or civil, medical negligence has three main components (1) duty, (2) Breach of the duty & (3) resulting damage out of the breach. Accordingly, a medical practitioner can be held liable on any of the two findings (1) he does not have the skills which he claims or (2) he does not perform reasonably according …show more content…
He claimed to treat disease named Naru (guinea worm) through a pamphlet advertising. In accordance with this, Deobi, aged about 20 year, who had been suffering from guinea worm for six weeks, visited his clinic for the treatment. She was examined by the appellant & administered 24 drops of mother tincture stramonium & a leaf of dhatura. After taking this medical she started feeling restless & ill; various antidotes were given but she was not relived. She vomited twice but the vomits were not preserved & sent for examination to the chemical examiner. Ultimately at about 5 p.m. she died. Stramonium & a dhatura leaf are poisonous & hence the reason of her death. It seems that the appellant prescribed the medicine without thoroughly studying what would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium & a leaf of dhatura. It is a rash & negligent act to prescribe poisonous medicines without studying their probably effect. The court held that the fact that care should be taken before imputing criminal negligence to a professional man actingin the course of his profession should not distract the attention from the fact that the appellant was guilty of a rash & negligent act & accordingly he should be held liable for criminal negligence under section 304A under
Whether criminal or civil, medical negligence has three main components (1) duty, (2) Breach of the duty & (3) resulting damage out of the breach. Accordingly, a medical practitioner can be held liable on any of the two findings (1) he does not have the skills which he claims or (2) he does not perform reasonably according …show more content…
He claimed to treat disease named Naru (guinea worm) through a pamphlet advertising. In accordance with this, Deobi, aged about 20 year, who had been suffering from guinea worm for six weeks, visited his clinic for the treatment. She was examined by the appellant & administered 24 drops of mother tincture stramonium & a leaf of dhatura. After taking this medical she started feeling restless & ill; various antidotes were given but she was not relived. She vomited twice but the vomits were not preserved & sent for examination to the chemical examiner. Ultimately at about 5 p.m. she died. Stramonium & a dhatura leaf are poisonous & hence the reason of her death. It seems that the appellant prescribed the medicine without thoroughly studying what would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium & a leaf of dhatura. It is a rash & negligent act to prescribe poisonous medicines without studying their probably effect. The court held that the fact that care should be taken before imputing criminal negligence to a professional man actingin the course of his profession should not distract the attention from the fact that the appellant was guilty of a rash & negligent act & accordingly he should be held liable for criminal negligence under section 304A under