Medicolegal Update
(Dr Sudhir Gupta, Additional Prof, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, AIIMS) The Delaware State Supreme Court ruling
Physician is not a warrantor of cure or of accurate
diagnosis
- It
is not enough…for the plaintiff to show that some other physician would
personally have acted any differently than the defendant…or that there is
an approach which would be better than that used by the defendant, if
nevertheless the approach used by the defendant is regarded...as an
acceptable approach…No inference of malpractice arises from the mere fact
that there was an undesirable result. Malpractice is never presumed. The
law does not make a physician an insurer of the best result of his
treatment.
- The
Michigan Supreme Court expressed similar sentiments and emphasized that
not all mistakes constitute negligence
- One’s
treating physician is not a warrantor of cure or of accurate diagnosis. He
is responsible in damages for unfortunate results when and only when it is
shown…that he has departed from that standard of care which is known as
customary medical practice…Using the benefit of hindsight,
- The
defendant–physician made one of those occasional mistakes which even the
most skilled of professional men do make as they proceed with the
trial–and–error work they have chosen. Such a mistake is not actionable in
the medical field unless it is shown…that the acts or omissions of accused
doctor were contrary to customary medical practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment