Summary
The Court upheld rejection of a medical-negligence complaint arising from the patient’s treatment and later death. The clinical choice of oral antibiotics and the discharge decision did not establish departure from the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. An available alternative treatment, a possible diagnostic error or the adverse outcome alone did not prove negligence on the evidence.
Issues
- Whether the treatment choices and discharge established actionable medical negligence.
- Whether the State Commission could award damages merely because an alternative course was available.
Held
- The relevant standard is reasonable professional skill and care, not the highest possible expertise or a guaranteed result. A treatment choice accepted by a responsible body of professional opinion is not negligent merely because another view exists. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The patient was promptly attended to. The doctor’s decision to use oral antibiotics took account of her clinical stability and difficulty obtaining intravenous access after earlier treatment; the Court found no basis to reject NCDRC’s assessment. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The discharge decision had to be considered against the overall clinical picture and prescribed continuing medication. At most, the material suggested a possible diagnostic error, without establishing the requisite negligent departure. (¶ 15)
- The State Commission could not substitute its preferred treatment merely because another course was possible. There was no evidence of an unexplained departure from standard protocol, and the patient’s death involved multiple serious medical factors rather than an established causal link to the impugned treatment. (¶ 16)
- The appellant’s loss could not by itself support compensation without the necessary legal and evidentiary basis for negligence. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; NCDRC’s rejection of the negligence claim upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.