Question

Is it important to document the source of injury to the doctor before starting the treatment?

Answer 1

Important to document the source of injury to the doctor before starting the treatment

The medical profession is considered a noble profession because it helps in preserving life. We believe life is God given. Thus, a doctor figures in the scheme of God as he stands to carry out His command. A patient for the most part approaches a specialist/doctor's facility dependent on his/its notoriety. Desires for a patient are two-overlap: specialists and doctor's facilities are relied upon to furnish medicinal treatment with all the learning and aptitude at their order and besides they won't effectively hurt the patient in any way either on account of their carelessness, remissness, or rash state of mind of their staff. In spite of the fact that a specialist may not be in a situation to spare his patient's life consistently, he is relied upon to utilize his exceptional learning and aptitude in the most fitting way remembering the enthusiasm of the patient who has depended his life to him. Along these lines, it is normal that a specialist complete essential examination or looks for a report from the patient.

Furthermore, unless it is an emergency, he obtains informed consent of the patient before proceeding with any major treatment, surgical operation, or even invasive investigation. Failure of a doctor and hospital to discharge this obligation is essentially a tortious liability. A tort is a civil wrong (right in rem) as against a contractual obligation (right in personam) – a breach that attracts judicial intervention by way of awarding damages.  

Along these lines, a patient's entitlement to get therapeutic consideration from specialists and healing facilities is basically a common right. The relationship takes the state of an agreement to some degree due to educated assent, installment of expense, and execution of medical procedure/giving treatment, and so forth while holding basic components of tort.

On account of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi versus Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole and Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128 and A.S.Mittal v. Province of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1570, it was set out that when a specialist is counseled by a patient, the specialist owes to his patient certain obligations which are: (an) obligation of consideration in choosing whether to attempt the case, (b) obligation of consideration in choosing what treatment to give, and (c) obligation of consideration in the organization of that treatment. A break of any of the above obligations may give a reason for activity for carelessness and the patient may on that premise recuperate harms from his specialist. In the aforementioned case, the apex court interalia observed that negligence has many manifestations – it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, willful or reckless negligence, or negligence per se. Dark's Law Dictionary characterizes carelessness essentially as "direct, regardless of whether of activity or oversight, which might be proclaimed and regarded as carelessness with no contention or verification with regards to the specific encompassing conditions, either in light of the fact that it is infringing upon resolution or substantial Municipal law or on the grounds that it is so obviously contradicted to the manages of normal reasonability that it tends to be said decisively or question that no cautious individual would have been blameworthy of it. When in doubt, the infringement of an open obligation, urged by law for the insurance of individual or property, so establishes."