CASE ANALYSIS – Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel and Ors, 1996.

INTRODUCTION

The case of Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel and others is another landmark judgment by the supreme court of India in 1996, which is instrumental in defining medical negligence especially with regard to the practitioners who practice any system of medicine other than that to which he or she is qualified. The case defines the term duty of care and duty of negligence per se relating to the medical practice whereby a doctor performs a treatment (under prescription) that is outside the scope of practice he/she is licensed to perform.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. Poonam Verma the appellant filed a case on the basis of medical negligence that resulted in the sad demise of Pramod Verma her husband.
2. Pramod Verma became febrile on the day of 4th July 1992 and consulted the physician Dr Ashwin Patel who was a registered practitioner of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery, DHMS.
3. In spite of his homoeopathy qualification, Dr. Patel administered allopathic drugs against viral fever, and later administered it against typhoid fever between July 4 and July 12, 1992. More importantly he failed to carry out any of the necessary diagnostic tests which included blood and urine analysis.
4. The health of Pramod Verma got extremely worse in the hands of Dr Patel. On July 12, he was admitted into Sanjeevani Maternity and General Nursing Home and was administered by Dr Rajeev Warty 
5. His condition was getting more and more severe. In turn, he went into the Hinduja Hospital on July 14, 1992, unconscious, and on the day of entrance into hospital died within a short time of four and a half hours only because of his illness.
6. At the first instance, Poonam Verma recorded a complaint at National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which in unfortunate turn of events rejected her petition. That compelled her to take the decision of NCDRC to Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether Dr. Ashwin Patel a qualified practitioner of homoeopath medicine was medically negligent in prescribing and administering medicines of another system namely allopathy and of which he is not qualified or authorized being a qualified homoeopathic practitioner?
2. The fact that Dr. Ashwin Patel did not carry out necessary diagnostic tests (blood or urine tests) prior to prescribing the treatment- was medical negligence or not.
3. What is the definition of negligence per se in the medical practice, when a practitioner operates out of his or her system of medicine that is legal?
4. Whether a medical practitioner automatically commits an act of negligence (negligence per se), whether or not it has an outcome, by their practice of a system of medicine of which they are not qualified?
5. Did the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission go wrong in rejecting the complaint of medical negligence filed by the appellant?
6. Whether the death which occurred to Pramod Verma due to direct medical incompetence on the part of Dr. Ashwin Patel?
7. Whether the appellant, Poonam Verma, is entitled to recieve compensation of the death of her husband due to the alleged medical negligence of Dr. Patel?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court analysed the facts and the law, ultimately overturning the verdict of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court’s significant pronouncements were as follows:

1. Medical negligence was found in Dr. Ashwin Patel. The Court therefore premised on the fact that his opinions were a serious violation of his duty of care.

2. Engaging in a non-qualified system of medicine that was not properly registered was considered as a negligence per se. The Court made it very clear that a medical practitioner, registered to practice a particular system of medicine (Homoeopathy) but practice another type of medicine (Allopathy) without obtaining the qualification and registering the required system of another medicine, is guilty of an act of negligence solely by performing the act.
3. The Court held that failure on part of Dr. Patel to do some basic tests (tests on blood or urine) prior to prescribing powerful allopathic drugs was also part of the negligence.
4. There was a direct casual relationship between the negligent treatment of Dr. Patel and the worsening of the condition of Pramod Verma which culminated into the latter dying.
5. Poonam Verma was given compensation. The Court ordered Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation to the appellant, and also ordered that he should pay Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) costs. This was to be paid within three months after the judgment.
6. The Court also ordered Medical Council of India and the State Medical Council to take appropriate action and consider taking action under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 against Dr. Ashwin Patel for practising the allopathy medicine without a qualified degree or registration.

REASONING

1. The Court explored the doctrine of negligence per se or that act which violates a statutory duty/law or regulation (generally one that is put in place to protect the community) will necessarily be a negligent one. His Engagement in the allopathic medicine by Dr. Ashwin Patel at a time when he was only graduated and registered in homoeopathy was a clear violation of the provisions of the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959. The same statutory violation, in and of itself, fixed upon himself a negligence, regardless of the care which he otherwise would have given.
2. On scope of practice and qualification, the Supreme Court made it clear that medical practitioners are supposed to limit their practice to the system of medicine in which they have been registered and qualified. Although Dr. Patel said to have certain experience in allopathy, the Court made it clear that no amount of experience can replace formal qualification and registration of a doctor with the particular medical council with reference to that method of medicine.
3. A primary duty of care towards a patient was reiterated by the Court. This responsibility covers both appropriate diagnosis and intervention in addition to working within the scope of expertise as well as the approved system of medicine. His refusal to take any preliminary diagnostic tests that are vital in an allopathic diagnosis of the ailment and the unauthorized allopathy prescription made by Dr. Patel was clear violation of this duty.
4. The Court was clear to draw connection between the breakdown in health of the Pramod Verma due to the negligent treatment of Dr. Patel (unauthorized allopathic medication and lack of proper diagnosis) to be the core cause of death. This direct causation was premised on which Dr. Patel was held liable.

CONCLUSION

The Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel is a landmark ruling of state medical law in India. It is a huge improvement in the area of consumer protection against medical negligence because it clearly provides that the practitioners are supposed to practice within their qualified and registered system of medicine. Doctrine of negligence per se in medical practice is greatly established by the ruling and it states that any unauthorized practice in the field of another form of medicine is necessarily negligent. Such a ruling not only served to do justice to the victimized family but also established a very good precedent thereby, ratifying the integrity of the medical professionals, and acting in favour of patient protection and integrity of the individual systems of medicine, that the law recognizes to date.

REFERENCES

• Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, (1996) 4 SCC 332, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/611474/ (last visited July 15, 2025).
• Unlicensed Allopathic Practice and Negligence: Insights from Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, CASEMINe, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/unlicensed-allopathic-practice-and-negligence:-insights-from-poonam-verma-v.-ashwin-patel/view (last visited July 15, 2025).

Written by Aryan Jain; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.