Topic
The NCDRC overturned a ₹38.25 lakh negligence award, ruling that a doctor's error of judgment does not constitute negligence if treatment adhered to accepted medical standards backed by expert opinion, especially absent a post-mortem confirming the cause of death.
The NCDRC ruled that performing triple-vessel angioplasty in a single sitting does not constitute medical negligence if supported by expert opinion, clinically indicated, and performed with valid informed consent. This reinforces the Bolam Test’s applicability in consumer medical disputes, shielding qualified practitioners from liability when standards of care are met, even in high-risk procedures.
Bombay High Court quashes FIR under Section 304-A IPC, holding that medical negligence must meet the 'gross negligence' standard to attract criminal liability.