Case study on Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 - This is a case of medical negligence.


Citation      - Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
Court          – High Court
Appellant    -   Bolam
Respondent - Friern Hospital Management Committee                                    
Coram            - MC NAIR JUSTICE
KEYWORDS - Reasonable care, Negligence
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE
This case is an English Tort Law case which defines the rule for deciding the appropriate standard of reasonable care in the case of negligence which includes skilled professionals for example- Doctors
FACTS
Mr. Bolam was a voluntary patient at a mental health institution which is run by the Friern Hospital Management Committee. Bolam agreed to undergo electro convulsive therapy as treatment for his mental illness. The doctor did not give any muscle relaxant and his body was not under control during his treatment and then he suffered some serious injuries which include the fractures of the acetabula. He sued the hospital for compensation.
ISSUES
·       Did the hospital fail to give relaxant drug before the treatment of his brain?
·       Shouldn’t the hospital have provided him some manual control?
·       Did the doctors have the duty to warn him about the risk?
ARGUMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff said that the hospital were negligent for:-
§  Not giving muscle relaxants
§  Not restraining him
§  Not warning him about the risks involved
ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANT
§  The defendant said that by giving full information about the dangers involved may change the mind of the patient for his treatment.
§  Since the doctors are expert in their professional skills and they know if there is a need to give manual control or not.
§  In the treatment of Mr. Bolam the risk of fractures were very small so the fact of not using drug is wrong.
JUDGMENT
Mc Nair Justice held that the treatment which is given by the doctor is according to his practice which is done in his profession. Justice noticed that manual restraints could sometimes increase the risk of fracture. It was the common profession of the doctors not to warn the patients of the risk of the treatment if it is very less. He said that the a person is not guilty of negligence if he had done his work in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.
OBITER DICTA
In this case the Jury delivered a case in favor of the hospital. The justice realized that the treatment which was given by the hospital was according to his medical opinions and they are not negligent in the way of treatment which is done by them. To determine negligence there should be a duty of care between a doctor and a patient and there is need to prove that the duty of care has been breached. So, the doctor was not negligent in his treatment.
COMMENT
According to me, under this case the doctor done his work according to the medical opinions which was done in his profession and he had done his treatment according to the procedure. The nature of patient and a doctor was reliable and the patient has to rely on all the advice which is given by the doctor. So, the doctor was not negligent in his treatment.
REFERENCES
§  E-Law Resources.co.uk
§  Swarb.co.uk
§  (1957)1 WLR 582,(1957)2 ALL ER 118
Tags : Reasonable care, Medical Negligence



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CASE STUDY ON BOULTON VS. JONES {1857} 2H AND N564

SYNOPSIS 1 CASE 2 INTRODUCTION 3 FACTS 4 ISSUES 5 HELD 6 COMMENT INTRODUCTION This case is based on the offer made to a particular person. In Contract Law, an offer is a promise in exchange for performance by other party. An offer can be revoked or terminated under certain conditions . KINDS OF OFFER There are two kinds of offer which are as follows:- GENERAL OFFER – General offer is made to the public at large. It may be accepted by any person who fulfills the necessary conditions. SPECIFIC OFFER – Specific offer is made to a particular person. No right of action accrues to persons other than those to whom the offer is made. FACTS The defendant i.e. Jones sent a written order for goods to a shop which is owned by Brocklehurst and which was addressed to him by name. Unknown to the defendant, Brocklehurst had earlier that day sold and transferred his business to Boulton.But Boulton fulfilled the order and delivered the goods to the defendant without not
Read more

What is the concept of Limited Liability Partnership?

ABSTRACT This paper is aimed at explaining the concept of “Limited Liability Partnership”. As it is clear from the name i.e. the liability of the partners is limited which is different from the old one as in the case of loss the liability of all the partners was not limited. The key factor of LLP is that it has benefits of company as well as partnership. To know more about this, first of all we must know about what is company and partnership. According to the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 it is a relation between two or more person who consented to share the profits of a business which will be carried by them. It has no separate legal entity which is different from its members whereas if we talk about company it has a separate legal entity which is different from its members. It has a perpetual succession which means the company will go on forever and the members may come and go. BACKGROUND It is first grown up in United States and the concept arises in India through Limited Li
Read more

Case study on PRAKASH vs. PHULAVATI & ORS (2016) 2 SCC 36

Tag: PRAKASH V. PHULAVATI (2016) 2 SCC 36 Ø In   The Supreme Court of India Ø Civil Appeal Jurisdiction Ø PRAKASH & ORS…. APPELLANTS VERSUS PHULAVATI & ORS....RESPONDENTS Ø Adarsh Kumar Goel J and   Anil R. Dave J Ø Judgement by Adarsh Kumar Goel J Ø Decided on October 16, 2015 Ø Publication on February 16, 2016 INTRODUCTION In this case Law on prospective vs. retrospective operation of legislation explained. The Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005 which came into effect on 09.09.2015 and by which daughters in a joint Hindu family, governed by Mitakshara law, were granted statutory right in the coparcenary property (being property not partitioned or alienated) of their fathers applies only if both the father and the daughter are alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.     FACTS   In this case the Court has dealt with the question of retrospective application of Section 6 (1) of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005
Read more