Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Ors.

Introduction:

In Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel, the Supreme Court differentiated negligence, rashness, and recklessness. A person is said to be a negligent person when he/she inadvertently commits an act of omission and violates a positive duty that he/she should have performed otherwise. A reckless person knows the repercussions of his/her acts but stupidly thinks that they will not occur as a consequence of her/ his act. Any conduct falling short of recklessness and deliberate wrongdoing should not be the subject of criminal liability.[1]

Thus a doctor has to be proved negligent or incompetent so that he/she can be held criminally responsible for a patient’s death, with such disregard for the safety and life of his/her patient that it amounted to a crime against the State.[2]

Facts

Pramod Verma, husband of the appellant, Mrs. Poonam Verma fell ill and complained of fever and so on July 4^th, 1992, Respondent No. 1, Ashwin Patel, who was an authorized Homeopathic kept him under mediation and gave him some allopathic medicines for viral fever for two days, i.e. up to July 6^th, 1992 but even after these medications the condition of Ashwin Patel didn’t improve so Respondent No. 1 shifted the medications from viral fever to Typhoid Fever because according to Respondent No. 1 these two diseases were prevalent in the locality.

But even then the condition of Ashwin  Patel deteriorated and so on July 12^th, 1992, the Respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to shift Ashwin Patel to Sanjeevani Maternity and General Nursing Home under Dr. Rajeev Warty, Respondent No.2 and till July 14^th, 1992 he was there but on the same day, in the evening he was shifted to Hinduja Hospital in an unconscious state where, after four and a half-hour of admission, he died. The Appellant therefore filed a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

Issue 

Whether there was a breach of duty of care by Respondent No. 1 in the treatment of Pramod Verma and whether this will amount to actionable negligence.

Holding

The honorable court held the respondent no. 1, Ashwin Patel, guilty of ‘Negligence’ to be prosecuted under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the court said that he is liable for the death of Mr. Pramod Verma, late husband of the appellant Ms. Poonam Verma.  The claim of the appellant is decreed as against Respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- payable to her in addition to her costs which are quantified at Rs . 30, 000/-. The court further would send a copy of the judgment to the Medical Council of India and State Medical Council on the grounds of the respondent violating the rules laid down under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Rationale

The court identified the difference between negligence and other conducts.  A negligent person is one who unknowingly commits an act of omission and violates a positive duty. In this particular case, the doctor Mr. Patel in the due course of treatment was negligent in his acts by practicing the Allopathic system of medication, though he does not hold any actual locus of practicing the same. In addition to this, the court also recognizes the nexus between the negligent actions during treatment and the criminal liability thereof of the doctor for the same.

Conclusion

In Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel, The Supreme Court held that any person who does not know a particular system of medicine but then also practices in that concerned system then he will be held guilty of medical negligence. This is part of the understanding of how the definition of “medical negligence” is argued today.

References:

[1] Himani Kishor Kini, Medical Negligence in India, Legal Services India, (July 18^th, 2020, 4 p.m.), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l388-Medical-Negligence.html.

[2] House of Lords decision in R vs Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79.