Mitshu Patel, Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
ABSTRACT
Medical profession is known as an esteemed profession. However, the health workers have often been put under scrutiny because of the rise in medical malpractice cases. Studies have found that medical disputes frequently emerge as a consequence of lack of communication. The major purpose to sue a doctor by the patient is to perceive what went wrong, not to get money. Litigation does not promote open dialogue. On the contrary, ADR is observed as a “therapeutic resolution” of a disagreement that allows parties to explain or receive explanations, apologize or forgive, and have closure and rebuild connections. Many studies demonstrate that ADR approaches including early apology, mediation, or arbitration are not only cost-effective, but also enhance patient or family satisfaction. At the same time, substantial issues regarding the appropriateness and legality of using ADR in medical malpractice cases may arise, since it may encroach upon the human right – “recourse to justice”. This article aims to analyze the suitability of different approaches of ADR in the medical disputes area. It will examine their benefits and shortcomings in such cases, and focus on how they may clash with the constitutionally protected right to access to justice.
