Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

48. The case of Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Manage m e n t Commit t e e , 19 5 7 2 All England Law Reports 118 = 195 7 1 WLR 582 is the test case followed in a number of English as well as Indian Supreme Court judgment s thereafter which is required to be analyzed with regard to the ambit of what act of a specialist medical professional being a surgeon or a physician would cause negligence.

57. Bolam's test lays down the actual ambit of the functions of any medical practitioner with regard to an error of judgment or an accidental mistake which may happen despite the fact that the judgment is applied by a particular school of thought even if there may be a contrary school of thought and the error may have happened despite taking all necessary care and precaution. Bolam's case (supra) and the principles laid down therein have been continuo u sly referred to, considered, followed and upheld all through in the Supreme Court judgments, including the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors, AIR 199 6 SC 237 7 , which shall be dealt with in another context presently.

63. Following upon that in the case of State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram & ors., [2005] 7 SCC 1 , Chief Justice Lahoti (as he then was) applied the Bolam test. Conseque ntly, a lady who conceived and procreated a daughter after sterilization operation was held not entitled to claim damages of Rs.3 Lakhs claimed by her and the decree of Rs.50,000 / - with interest and costs granted to her by the Trial Court was set aside holding that parameters of the Bolam test were not satisfied since it was shown that the medical science recognized failure of sterilization operation to the extent of 0.3% to 3% and because consequences of the failure can promptly be taken care of by the pregnant woman by undergoing abortion. 

                             ig                                               Those
    procedures once again fall within the Bolam test.                    They call
                           
    for the same parameters          in reviewing the extent of the
    negligence therein.       If such procedures, which a sizable

medical opinion would permit, are followed, once again the surgeon would steer himself clear of the shadow of negligence. The Defendan t whilst performing the Embolectomy fell within those parameters. The evidence has revealed that if an embolus is detected, for whatever reason, an error in the performa nce of Sympat hectomy or otherwise, it has to be removed. Embolectomy is one of the procedures for its removal. Even if there be other or better procedures, medical science as on the date of the surgery allowed Embolectomy to be one of them. This was performed twice because the first Embolectomy did not clear the arteries of the deceased. It was not performed again and again which could result in arterial damage as is the evidence of Dr.Kalke. Dr.Khandepa r k a r performed its once, Dr.Kalke has himself deposed that if he were to come upon such symptoms he would be constrained to perform an Embolectomy likewise. At the time of by- pass grafting in the KEM Hospital also Embolectomy had to be performed and then the two ends of the artery had to be sut ured. Dr.Kalke's evidence in that regard stands to reason. A graft would be of no use if the circulation in the artery is not flawless. Any embolus or clot in the blood stream within the artery would, therefore, have to be removed before grafting is made if the newly grafted portion of the artery has to have a healthy blood circulation unobstr uc ted by any embolus. Conseque n tly, with regard to both these procedure s the Defenda nt's act falls within the parameters of the Bolam test. He cannot be held liable for negligence for either of them.