The Bolam Principle, which has its roots in the historic UK case Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957), has significantly influenced the development of medical negligence jurisprudence worldwide. This principle stipulates that a medical professional cannot be held liable for negligence if their actions are in line with a practice that is considered appropriate by a responsible body of medical opinion. Indian courts have adopted this principle, ensuring that medical professionals are evaluated against standards set by their peers rather than the general public's opinion.

In the recent case of Neeraj Sud v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) (2024 INSC 825), the Supreme Court of India reiterated the importance of the Bolam Principle in determining medical negligence. This case centered on allegations of medical negligence that led to adverse health consequences for a minor. The plaintiff contended that the treating physician failed to comply with established medical protocols, thereby causing harm.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that unfavourable results alone are insufficient to establish negligence. The Court emphasized that negligence must be proven through concrete evidence that demonstrates the medical professional's actions deviated from the standard practice accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals. This ruling strengthens the position that courts should refrain from substituting their judgment for that of medical experts unless there is clear evidence of deviation from accepted medical standards.

The key takeaways from this judgment include:

• Emphasis on Established Medical Standards: The judgment underlines the importance of assessing medical negligence based on professional medical standards. By reaffirming the Bolam Principle, the Court provided clarity and consistency, ensuring that medical professionals are not unduly subjected to frivolous lawsuits. This ensures that liability is imposed based on a well-defined framework of medical competence.
   
• Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff: A significant aspect of this ruling is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that claimants must present substantial evidence to demonstrate that the medical professional acted negligently. This prevents baseless claims that could undermine the credibility and efficiency of the healthcare system.
   
• Differentiating Between Negligence and Adverse Outcomes: The Court clarified that an adverse medical outcome does not necessarily imply negligence. Medicine is an inherently uncertain field, and not all treatments lead to the desired results. The ruling safeguards doctors from being unfairly held accountable for outcomes that are beyond their control.

This judgment has significant implications for medical jurisprudence in India as it reinforces judicial restraint in medical negligence cases. Courts must rely on expert testimony rather than subjective interpretations of medical procedures. This approach ensures fairness for both patients and medical practitioners.

Furthermore, the ruling instils confidence in healthcare professionals, encouraging them to make decisions based on their expertise without the constant fear of legal repercussions. It also emphasizes the need for maintaining detailed medical records to substantiate clinical decisions.

The judgment strikes a balance between patient rights and medical accountability. While it offers protection to doctors, it also underscores the importance of accountability in the healthcare sector. Patients who suffer due to genuine negligence still have legal recourse. The ruling ensures that allegations are scrutinized based on established medical principles, rather than arbitrarily.

For patients, this judgment highlights the necessity of obtaining expert opinions before filing medical negligence cases. It also places greater responsibility on hospitals to ensure adherence to standard medical protocols, as they can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employed doctors.

In conclusion, the Neeraj Sud v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) (2024 INSC 825) judgment reinforces the application of the Bolam Principle in Indian medical negligence cases. By setting a clear framework for evaluating medical negligence, it protects both healthcare providers and patients. While ensuring that doctors are not unfairly targeted for adverse outcomes, the ruling also maintains the possibility of accountability for genuine instances of medical negligence. This judgment is a significant step towards achieving a balanced and fair legal approach in medical negligence claims in India.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565