Written By: Mahitha Lall, Student, Vels Institute of Science and Technology
Introduction
ADR referred to the conflict that should get resolve without going court. Negligence and damages in medical care are one of the major criteria that fall under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The negligence and damages in medical care is commonly referred to as mediation by the courts. Since this sort of process in the substantial methodology obvious by the doctors to promote their profit margins. The medical cosmos has turned their intention towards malpractice which leads to patients' esse. And if the patient or the client approaches the court for fairness, it is for granted that the court will pass dates and will approximately lead to five years for proceedings of the decree. A sudden obvious by the court should not be expected by the client or the patient. This sort of negligence and damages are now being considered under tort. Subsequently, the earlier reforms say that such sort of negligence and damages were not embraced under tort. And similarly, there were no political reforms under these criteria embracing economic tort. But the increase in such offence and such offensive negligence the preceding embraces such sort of medical negligence to be threatening to esse of a strain and should be embraced under tort.
Medical negligence is misconduct by medical professionals or doctors by not providing enough care and obeying their duty correctly. This professional need expert and the patients who are in disease is in faith that their disease will get the cure and will be healed properly with full care by those professionals. And if such professionals do negligence in their duty and work or neglect any patient, then it is obvious that such patients may not get easily convinced by apologies.
When duly implemented the ADR, there is no such record of litigation and other courts criteria, and providing gratification to both the appellant and the defendant. This has manifested to be one of the most dependable forms of tort which embraces increase cost and leads to the malpractice of the patient. But under tort, such sort of tort reform is highly rare in medical malpractice. But can’t ignore the rest.
Medical malpractice is consequences with most poverty or middle-class strain or patient who can’t afford court expenses. And for such patients the doctors provide them with some expenses in order to maintain silence and to resolve the disputes privately. And such sort of medical disputes which are resolved privately are now embraced under ADR. Where the patient and the doctor both get contentment from the court.
Issues Raised
The question arises here; 1. Whether there is surge of ADR in medical negligence and care? 2. Whether there is a need of ADR in medical care? 3. What sort of patients are certainly ambush under ADR by the doctors? 4. Did the court assert the patients in medical negligence or favour the medical professional for performing ADR? 5. Did the political reform and the government provide any allocation for medical negligence and damages or apprise to perform ADR? 6. What are the consequences of ADR under medical negligence and damages?
1. Whether there is surge of ADR in medical negligence and care?
In India there is surge of arbitration process in the medical field. This arbitration process is certainly confidential between the parties. But the rapid surge of arbitration imperium led to the implementation of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Indian allocation is heavily bond to the arbitration methodology in recommendation with UNICITRAL law.
And perceiving in medical negligence, South Africa and other countries embracing India follows negligence exertion embracing arbitration, negotiation etc. with the client. And the parties and the client keep it confidential for each other sake. The arbitrator or the doctor who indulge in negligence in fear of cops and the patient in fear of court expenses, respect and inculcate in an agreement for each other gratification.
2. Whether there is a need of ADR in medical care?
There are various sorts of Alternative Dispute Resolution in medical care. Which are as follows:
1. Early Disclosure and Apology:
This sort of performance is done between the parties in order to resolve the conflicts between the parties. The conflict may be caused due to any damages or negligence. The most certainly informal sort of ADR is negotiation. Subsequently, parties indulge in such sort of resolution in order to facilitate apologise or even attempting to mitigate emotions or anger for providing safe zone for the offender to disclose the matter without fear that no party should misuse the manifestation of negligence at trial under tort reform. These sorts of seeking to apologise for negligence happened or disclosure of the matter fully through emotions or anger is known as early disclosure and apology.
Although the hearing of apology from the medical director or professional is depended upon the parties or the client to which it happened. In certain cases, the apology is considered saying “I am sorry” and sometimes the apology is done in the way “I am sorry it happened to you” and “I am sorry I did it to you”. In India “I am sorry” and “I am sorry it happened to you” may be excepted. But “I am sorry I did it to you” is not excepted by the courts and most certainly by the clients also. Since, under this situation, the doctor might do the negligence to the patient purposely due to some ego, anger or any other public indecency.
Apology status is although provide assertion to the doctors for disclosure of the matter fully but this is not the case always. In some cases, and in certain cases, any sort of apology is not excepted by the clients. Since, it is perceived that if the negligence is happened through any medical equipment’s while operation or any test, the negligence can go to the whole medical department for not checking the quality of the equipment’s. But if the negligence is happened by the doctor while prescribing any medicines or while doing any erroneous operation with or without consent, depends upon the doctor. And such sort of negligence of a doctor is life threatening which effects both the patients esse and the reputation of the medical. And under such negligence, such apologise are not excepted by the clients.
2. Mediation:
Mediation is another sort of negotiation practice by the third party. The character of the mediation is that of nonbinding. This is such sort of binding where the parties can break the negotiation anytime. The physicians if want may approach the trial court if he thinks that he has been wrongly sued. Mediation may be less effective when ordered by the court.
3. Arbitration:
This sort of agreement is done between the parties and are confidential between them. In such conflicts the parties gave imperium to the third party in order to resolve the conflict without taking the issues for trial. It is a private and a confidential agreement where the client agree to the apologise of the doctor and get bond in an agreement of disclosing the matter.
Arbitration is not illegal in India. Since, it is a very smooth process which saves the time of the client and the doctors. It also keeps the reputation of the doctor, medical and the client. Both the parties get gratification from each other and the matter get resolve without any expenses or further trials in court.
These are some of the requisite of ADR in medical care. Since, under all negligence and damages by the medical and the doctor ADR doesn’t work for the doctors because under some higher negligence or damage to the client the client’s seek court in carve of their esse.
3. What sort of patients are certainly ambush under ADR by the doctors?
Generally, if we speak of various sorts of patients. It depends upon the extent of the negligence happened by the doctors. But if we perceived about the certitudes, illiterate clients are certainly ambush by negligence of the doctor. The doctors in order to manifest the client not to disclose the matter in court apologise or get engage into an agreement. And on the other side, the literate strains generally except the apologise of the doctor only under less negligence happened. And if something more erroneous happened to the client, they may seek the court for trial. In this way, such patients are ambush by ADR. But the above certitude may not always true. It can be vice-versa as per the proportion of the negligence happened.
4. Did the court assert the patient in medical negligence or favour the medical professional for performing ADR?
There are distinct definition of negligence and damage happened by the medical professionals. When doctors treat a patient that doctor is believed as god by that patient. But if he fails to treat that person then it can be negligence. And such sort of negligence is actually not considerable under courts. Because, if the doctor has tried his level best to save his patients esse but still he couldn’t save that patient by all means then in this situation a doctor can’t be held responsible neither by the patient nor by the court. Because, the duty of the doctor is to try to save a patients esse by all means. But if it can’t be done at any cost, then the doctor can’t be held liable for it. And the doctors apologise for their inconvenience and settled their dispute outside the court. But in other cases, if the negligence is done purposely by the doctor to the patient, then the court won’t permit Alternative Dispute Resolution to upheld. But in this situation, it depends upon the patient that whether they want to approach the court or want to settle the dispute with the doctor privately (ADR).
The courts give prosecution for negligence in medical care under law of tort, Indian Penal Code, contract act etc. If the negligence has done any threatening of patients esse then the court can consider it as a crime. Negligence under tort can be considered by perceiving the amount of loss happened by the doctor. And the negligence under crime is considered by the degree, exertion or amount of negligence happened.
The court asserts the doctors for performing ADR and asserts the patients as well to seek court if any crime has happened by the doctor’s negligence. But the court may prefer to resolve the dispute outside the court if the negligence is not too erroneous and life threatening. In every singly negligence if the patient approaches the court for their fair, then the court won’t be having much accent to perceive on other criminal, economical and civil cases. Courts can’t rely only on patients and doctor’s conflicts. A court might prefer ADR under small negligence happened and to seek court if any crime, forgery etc has happened.
5. Did the political reform and the government provide any allocation for medical negligence and damages or apprise to perform ADR?
Politically, there is impetus for ADR. Caps on damages may be an effective means of cost control, but they may not be realistic at the federal level at this time. During the recent healthcare debates at the national level, there was considerable support in favour of caps on noneconomic damages. Since, ADR is not illegal in federation and promotes savage of accent of the magistrate and to go for serious criminal cases. There is nothing mandatory that the patient can approach the court only under serious negligence happened. They can approach the court if their virtue over liberty and life has been infringed. But the political leaders and the government promote ADR in order to serene the work of the magistrate and the clients as well. For saving expenses over courts and not to wait for years for justice. And hence, ADR is a good and effortless procedure which can resolve any dispute without proceeding in courts. This procedure maintains both the parties’ accent and maintain their reputation in the society.
6. What are the consequences of ADR under medical negligence and damages?
The consequences of ADR can be good or erroneous. As perceived earlier, that the negligence should not go beyond the extent that it violates the law. If this happened, then such negligence is not feasible in the perforation of the law. And if the negligence has not gone beyond the extent and has done small errors in any medical care or prescription unknowingly, then there is no need to approach the court rather can prefer ADR and can resolve the dispute privately.
Conclusion
I can conclude here by saying that ADR has its own impact and its advantages. ADR is not a bad process. The disputes which can be resolved after certainly approaching courts can be done privately by seeking apologise or by improving the negligence. And the clients can approach court if any serious negligence has happened by the doctor which is criminal in nature. But subsequently, doctors are believed as god. They are only the ones who is known after god. So, as a human being doctors are also humans and sometimes some mistakes are also happened by them. The client should understand them and their situation. They should give them one chance to improve their mistake rather suing them in court. And on the other side, the doctors should also know that the patient has come to them with full hope that the doctor will cure the disease and will give them happiness in return. The doctors should also try that they should not hurt their feelings and should not play with their emotions. The patients are in pain and need such treatment which gives them their life. And so, the doctors should try that they should not neglect any patient and should try not to do any negligence regarding patients esse. However, both the parties should understand each other situation and pain.
Opinions expressed in the blogs are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The L Word Blog.
Comments