Duty, Breach, And Damages: A Tri-Jurisdictional Analysis Of Medical Malpractice Laws
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 19
- 1 min read
Updated: Jun 7
Ayush Goel, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
(Dr.) Anil Kumar Dixit, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
ABSTRACT
Medical malpractice law serves as a crucial safeguard for patient rights, ensuring accountability when healthcare providers fail to meet accepted standards of care. This paper conducts atri-jurisdictional analysisof medical malpractice laws in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, focusing on the core elements of duty, breach, and damages. While these principles are universally recognized, their interpretation and application vary significantly across legal systems.
In the United States, medical malpractice claims hinge on establishing a duty of care, breach of the reasonable physician standard, andcompensable harm, often requiring expert testimony. The U.S. permits punitive damages in egregious cases, though some states impose statutory caps1. According to the Bolam-Bolitho test, which is used in the UK, a physician is not considered negligent if their acts are consistent with a credible body of medical opinion2. UK courts emphasize informed consent3 and rarely award punitive damages. In India, medical malpractice is adjudicated under consumer protection laws4 and tort principles, with courts imposing liability for deficiency in service5.
A comparative analysis reveals that while all three jurisdictions require proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages, the standard of care, burden of proof, and damage awards differ substantially. The U.S. emphasizes patient autonomy and punitive deterrence, the UK prioritizes professional medical standards, and India blends consumer rights with negligence principles. These variations highlight the need for potential legal harmonization to strengthen global healthcare accountability while respecting jurisdictional nuances.
