Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Medical Negligence Claim Over Alleged Wrong Administration Of Remdesivir Injection To COVID Patient

Denying the claim of medical negligence against a doctor for alleged wrongful administration of Remdesivir injection leading to death of a 69 years old woman, the Chhattisgarh High Court observed that putting Doctors to criminal prosecution for negligence would create a lot of "emotional disturbance" at the time of pandemic, when the doctors are serving the ailing.

Justice Goutam Bhaduri remarked that the doctors made their best effort to revive the ailing ones despite the miserably falling doctors-patient ratio. It remarked that no criminal negligence can be attached on an individual opinion.

"Under these circumstances, one has to indicate trust in the system and cannot be allowed to abuse the conditions, maybe a self-certified bonafide," the Court further added.

Background

The petitioner's mother was admitted to Ram Krishna Care Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. with an infection of Jaundice and was tested Covid positive at the time of admission. The allegation of negligence is based on the fact that her health deteriorated due to wrong treatment of administering Remdesivir Injection. It was further alleged that despite having tested negative for COVID after a few days, she was still kept with the COVID patients. Subsequently, the victim succumbed to post-COVID complications.

Another allegation against the concerned Hospital was that her dead body was delivered to the petitioner without following Covid-safety protocol.

The petition therefore sought prosecution of the hospital respondent for the negligent treatment and violating COVID protocol norms in handling the dead body.

Advocate Shakti Raj Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's mother, when admitted, was tested Covid-19 positive and though she recovered but eventually died despite testing negative.

Findings

The Court remarked that whether Remdesivir Injection was necessary for the victim's treatment or not cannot be tested by the Court. It relied on Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2004), where the Supreme Court held that bonafide medical practitioners should not be put through unnecessary harassment. It had also held that simple lack of care, error of judgment, or an accident is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional and that failure to use special or extraordinary precautions that might have prevented a particular incidence can not be the standard for judging alleged medical negligence.

Similarly, in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr (2005), the Top Court laid several guidelines related to medical negligence and liability arising therein. Among the several guidelines, it was also noted that,

"For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher, i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution."

Noting the country's debilitating health conditions amid the pandemic and disbalance in doctor-patient ratio, the Court opined,

"The pandemic have returned after 100 years, no medicine is invented, as such, the doctors to the best of their ability and understanding have administered different injection to the Covid-19 infected patients. This may be attended by risks, one has to understand the fact that the system can not take benefits without taking the risks and every advance in technique and experience is also attended by risks. The Doctors like the rest of us, have to learn by experience, and experience often teaches in a hard way.
Therefore, putting the Doctors to a criminal prosecution for negligence would lead to create a lot of emotional disturbance, at the time of pandemic when the doctors have served the ailing besides the fact doctors-patient ratio has miserably failed and doctors made their best effort to revive the ailing one, no criminal negligence can be attached on any individual opinion."

So far as allegation of violation of requisite guidelines for handing over the dead body is concerned, the Court observed that it cannot go into a roving inquiry in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

"Serving certain problems requires a multi-pronged approach, and they would persist if viewed through a narrow lens and the petitioner, therefore, cannot accept ill-conceived exercise by this court to substantiate the fact and allegation," the Court added.

Case Title: Sanjay Ambastha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order