Radiology: Probing legalities of ultrasound
M Neelam Kachhap: Dec 11 2012, 15:59 IST
would not do”. The definition involves three constituents of negligence: a legal duty to exercise the due care; breach of the said duty; consequential damage," explains Sajid Mohamed, Partner, PDS & Associates, Mumbai. He adds that to be successful, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant (sonologist) owed a duty of certain care towards the patient, this duty was breached, and this breach resulted in the immediate proximate damage to the patient directly or indirectly. At times one feels that the plaintiff has a difficult task to prove this, but in reality it is a doctor's own lack of proper documentation and non-observance of standard operating procedures (SOPs), which makes it easier for the plaintiff to establish negligence on the part of the doctor. Duty of care is established as soon as the patient walks into
a doctor's clinic and
submits him/herself to examination. A doctor-patient relationship thereby comes in to existence.
The Supreme Court in Laxman v. Trimbak, held, “The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties
Previous Story Porcupine quills to help develop painless hypodermic needles Next Story Tata Motors owned Jaguar Land Rover mulls plant in Saudi Arabia
Reader's Comments| Post a Comment
Be the first to comment.
