The Pros And Cons Of Medical Negligence

Negligence is a term of art, but has different meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in master servant relationship. In criminal law, there are channels of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is immaterial; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operating a patient without consent is an example of negligence even without actual damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’. The term negligence defined by Baron Alderson negligence means: “Omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by that consideration which regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable

The following are the basic ingredients that causes negligence ;

1. The defendant has a duty to take care to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant has breached this duty of care.

3. The plaintiff has suffered an injury due to his breach.

And in most of the cases of medical negligence the doctor is always defendant. Negligence is predominantly a theory of liability concerning allegations of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of the Tort Law.

Negligence

Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. In tort law, negligence is harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Proof of Negligence

A doctor or a medical practitioner should not be held liable for medical negligence if simply something goes wrong. He shouldn’t be held liable for the chances taken by him keeping reasonable care. The medical practitioner can only be held liable if he fails to maintain the basic caution as a man of ordinary prudence would have. The standard of reasonable care is ductile in nature. Here the person need not have the highest degree of care or caution but like a man of ordinary prudence. The standard reasonable care cannot be fixed mathematically or through a formula. What constitute negligence is different in different circumstances and it varies from time to time in determining whether the act of the doctor would constitute negligence in

It means carelessness in a matter in which the law mandates carefulness. A breach of this duty gives a patient the right to initiate action against negligence.

Persons who offer medical advice and treatment implicitly state and undertake to have the skill and knowledge to do as under:

• To undertake particular job.

• To decide whether to take a case or not ,

• To decide the treatment suitable for particular case

• To administer that treatment.

This is known as an “implied undertaking” on the part of a medical professional.

However, no human being is perfect and even the most renowned specialist could make a mistake in detecting or diagnosing the true nature of a disease.

A doctor can be held liable for negligence only if one can prove that she/ he is guilty of a failure that no doctor with ordinary skills would be guilty of if acting with reasonable care. An error of judgment constitutes negligence only if a reasonably competent professional with the standard skills that the defendant professes to have, and acting with ordinary care, would not have made the same