Summary
The family of a patient who died after a successful kidney transplant alleged negligent post-operative treatment and follow-up. The Court upheld dismissal of their consumer complaint: the record and specialist evidence did not establish a departure from reasonably competent care. Death despite treatment did not itself prove negligence. It also rejected the claim that the later hospital required transplant registration merely to provide post-discharge care. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether post-operative negligence was established on the treatment record and expert evidence.
- Whether the later hospital needed transplant registration solely for post-discharge care.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994Registration applied to hospitals undertaking transplantation; the Court found no requirement under the Act that the later hospital be so registered merely for the post-discharge care at issue. (¶ 35)
Held
- The standard is the skill and care of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant field, assessed against knowledge and accepted practice at the time. A genuine choice between reasonable treatments or an unsuccessful outcome does not by itself establish negligence. Pre-operative, post-operative and follow-up care remain reviewable on their facts. (¶ 23-28)
- The transplant’s successful performance was undisputed. The treatment records and evidence of specialists supported the post-operative care provided; the patient’s subsequent deterioration and death did not establish that the treating doctors breached the requisite standard. (¶ 29-34)
- The complainants’ medical witnesses lacked expertise in kidney transplantation, while the opposing evidence came from practitioners with relevant specialist experience. On this record, being medically qualified alone did not give the complainants’ witnesses the claimed subject-specific expert standing or establish negligent follow-up. (¶¶ 11-16, 31-33)
- The transplantation took place in a registered hospital. The statutory registration objection to the different hospital used after discharge failed because the Court found no provision requiring such registration solely for the subsequent care in question. This did not remove the general duty of competent post-operative care. (¶¶ 28, 35)
Result
Appeal dismissed, leaving the Commission’s dismissal of the consumer complaint intact. No costs. Pending applications disposed of.