The newspaper article outlines the Supreme Court’s 11-point guidelines on medical negligence. Here’s a detailed explanation of the key points as per legal provisions:

General Context:

The Supreme Court of India has emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act should not create fear among doctors while making professional decisions, especially in critical situations where patient survival is at stake. The guidelines aim to strike a balance between patient rights and protecting doctors from undue harassment.

---

Key Highlights of the 11-Point Norms:

1. Negligence Defined:

It is a breach of duty or an act that a prudent and reasonable person would not commit.

Negligence must be culpable or gross and not based on a mere error in judgment.

2. Standard of Care Expected:

A doctor is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge.

This standard is not the highest or lowest degree of competence but aligns with the norm expected of a professional in the same field.

3. Liability:

A doctor is liable only when their conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable and competent practitioner in the field.

4. Difference of Opinion:

A difference in medical opinions among professionals cannot be cited as negligence.

5. Outcome vs. Effort:

If a doctor applies professional knowledge to the best of their ability but fails to yield the desired result, it does not amount to negligence.

6. Choice of Treatment:

If a doctor chooses one form of treatment over another, provided the choice is accepted by the medical profession, they cannot be held liable even if the outcome is unfavorable.

7. Judgment in Risky Situations:

In emergencies, doctors often need to make quick decisions, sometimes taking higher risks. They are not negligent if the attempt to save the patient fails.

8. Practical Efficiency:

Medical efficiency would be adversely affected if doctors constantly worked under fear of legal consequences.

9. Professional Protection:

The court stressed the importance of protecting doctors from undue harassment and humiliation in the course of their work.

10. No Harassment of Doctors:

It is a duty to ensure that medical professionals are not harassed unnecessarily, enabling them to carry out their duties without fear.

11. Doctors’ Rights:

Medical practitioners are entitled to legal protection under these norms, provided they act in good faith and adhere to professional standards.

Case Context:

This ruling arose from a complaint filed by a family against Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre after the death of a patient. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that negligence could not be proven based on the outlined standards.

Conclusion:

These guidelines aim to ensure that while patients’ rights are safeguarded, doctors can work without the constant fear of litigation, allowing them to make informed decisions even under challenging circumstances.