Introduction
According to the presented case of Gregory and St. Ann's Hospital, there are several responsibilities that existed on the patient in question. It is clear that some of the responsibilities were breached by the hospital, Drs. Able, Braxton and Cameron. Any patient who consults a medical professional anticipates medical dealing with the entire skill and knowledge that the medical professional holds so as to bring liberation to his or her medical problem (Pandit & Pandit, 2009). The relationship between the patient and the doctor assumes the shape and attributes of a contract are thereby retaining the crucial elements of a tort. It is the duty of the medical professional to acquire informed permission from the patient before performing any therapeutic management or diagnostic tests.
In the case presented, Dr Able did not obtain informed consent from Gregory regarding the removal of extra muscle tissue on his right thigh. As a consequence, Gregory is within his right to sue the doctor for any consequence that might arise following the operation performed by Dr Able on his right thigh (Atal, Naik & Murari, 2010). While it is the responsibility of a doctor to provide the best medical care to his patients, it is imperative for the doctor to obtain informed consent from the patient before carrying out any therapeutic management or diagnostic tests.
Dr. Laxman Joshi vs Dr. Trimbark Godbole and Anr, AIR 1969
The court ruled that in the event that a patient consults a doctor, the medical profesional has specific responsibilities to the patients: responsibility ance in deciding whether to commence the case, the responsibility of precaution for making the decision on what therapy to apply, and the responsibility for the management of the said therapy (Atal, Naik & Murari, 2010). A fissure of any of these responsibilities presents a reason of action for medical negligence. As a consequence, the patient may recover damages based on the breached element. In the case above, the court noted that there are several manifestations of negligence: continued negligence, hazardous negligence, collateral negligence and gross negligence.
Similarly, in the case of Samira Kohli vs. Dr Prabha Manchnda & Ors (2008), the court ruled that consent given for operative and diagnostic laparoscopy does not amount to overall consent on other medical diagnosis and management. The doctor should have postponed until the patient had recuperated consciousness and gave appropriate consent.
Gregory can sue all the doctors (Drs Able, Braxton and Cameron) as well as the Hospital for medical negligence. He approached the doctor on so many occasions regarding his pain, but he was taken for granted in each of the first few instances. The first negligence is demonstrated by Dr Able the first time Gregory approached the hospital (Atal, Naik & Murari, 2010). Instead of providing though check-up and diagnostic test, Dr Able discharges him with the mindset that he came for drugs. A similar case is demonstrated by Dr Braxton who examines Gregory's leg and offers ineffective prescription (Pandit & Pandit, 2009). On the other hand, Dr Cameron adds salt to Gregory's injuries when he calls for security guards who break his leg. All these actions by these doctors amount to medical negligence.
In most cases, a patient approaches a medical professional based on his or her qualifications. The similar mentality is applied to the hospital. It is the responsibility of both the doctor and the hospital to provide medical treatment with all their skill and know-how at the command of the patient (Pandit & Pandit, 2009). Additionally, the doctors and the hospital is responsible for the patient to guarantee that they do not perform any practice to hurt the patient in any form; either as a result of their carelessness, negligence or reckless arrogance of their staff.
Tort actions
Gregory has several tort actions that he can present in this case. Given that he only has partial use of his leg after the surgery that led to the removal of excess muscle, he can sue the St. Ann’s hospital for medical negligence and demand financial compensation. Additionally, Gregory is within his right to demand a corrective surgery at no extra cost from the hospital so as to retain his health.
References
Atal, D. K., Naik, S. K., & Murari, A. (2010). Medical negligence & law in Indian
context. International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Legal Medicine,12(4), 13-17.
Pandit, M. S., & Pandit, S. (2009). Medical negligence: Coverage of the profession, duties,
ethics, case law, and enlightened defense-A legal perspective. Indian journal of urology:
IJU: journal of the Urological Society of India, 25(3), 372.
