The Bombay High Court has quashed an order of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) that removed two doctors from the medical register over alleged medical negligence.
The court held that choosing one recognized treatment approach over another does not, by itself, amount to medical negligence.
Dispute Over Treatment Procedure
The case involved treatment for urethral stricture. One doctor treated the patient using cystoscopy and urethral dilatation. During the procedure, the patient developed urinary extravasation. The doctors then stopped the procedure, inserted a Foley catheter and administered antibiotics.
The MCI later questioned another doctor’s decision to use a scrotal skin flap instead of a mucosal graft to bypass the urethral stricture.
Court Refers to Supreme Court Precedents
As per Medical Dialogues, the Bombay High Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq. These judgments state that selecting one recognized treatment method over another does not automatically establish medical negligence.
The court also noted that doctors must possess reasonable competence and skill, but they do not necessarily have to follow the same treatment approach as another medical professional.
Court Quashes MCI Order
The High Court found deficiencies in the MCI Ethics Committee’s reasoning and proceedings. It also noted that the committee did not include a specialist urologist while examining the treatment-related allegations.
Consequently, the court quashed the MCI’s 2013 order removing the two doctors from the medical register, finding that the material before it did not establish medical negligence.