DOCTOR AND PATIENT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14407, 15 July 1912, Page 10

DOCTOR AND PATIENT.

(FBEBS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, July 14

A judgment of some importance was delivered at the Magistrate's Court by Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., in a case in which Dr. Hugh Keith claimed tho sum of £12 12s from W- S. Sneller for professional attendance on ~th*e .latte-r.'s wife in the early part of 1907. .--MiKettle said that in this, case the defondant admitted tho attendances, and also that if plaintiff were entitled to recover, tho fees charged by him wero reasonable. Defendant, however; resisted plaintiff's claim in respect of the attendances subsequent to the patient's confinement, on the ground that her long indisposition was due to plaintiff's ignorance, want of skill, and breach of duty, and that therefore plaintiff was not entitled to recover for such, attendances. The ac:ion was commenced in June, 1911, about four, years after the services were rendered, \ind plaintiff's explanation of tho delay was that ho never sued his patients for fees due, and would not have taken proceedings against, defendant but for the fact that it had come to his knowledge that it had ■ been said that he (plaintiff) had not tho courage to suo, and did not d-esire to have his treatment of defendant's wife investigated in a Court of Justice. Professional negligence or want of reasonable skill in the treatment of a case, said Mr Ivsttlo, if clearly proved, was undoubtedly a sufficient answer to a claim by a practitioner for his f<»es. Professional men were not infallible, but when there was reasonable room for doubt or diversity of opinion, an honest error of judgment was, he thought, excusable, jf the error was one into which a prudent man might, under tho.circumstances, honestly- fall, he did not think that a practitioner could be held responsible. Therefore, in the case before him, lie had to decide whether the defendant (on whom the onus of proof rested) had clearly established that plaintiff's treatment was lacking in ordinary knowledge, skill, and care. It was alleged that during the period of Dr. Keith's treatment Mrs Sncllcr wa.s suffering from appendicitis: that he went on treating the symptoms in unjustifiable ignorance of what she was really suffering from; and did not even disclose to her husband that the case was a difficult and puzzling ono, or suggest n consultation with another medical man. Mr Kettle s-aid that his decision must not he based on his personal opinion of plaintiff's conduct and treatment, but on the weight of tho expert medical testimony called by both sides. The only expert witness called by defendant was Dr. James Moir, an old and experienced practitioner. The Latter stated in that r.ftrr studying the case very carc-fullv. he had come to the conclusion that plaintiff's treatment of Mrs Sneller had" shown a want of reasonable knowledge and skill. .On the other hand. Mr Savage, an experienced and eminent surgeon, who was. called in by Dr- Moir to examine Mrs Sn.ller inimediatelv after plaintiff had ceased to attend "her, expressed the opinion that the case was a somewhat complicated and troublesome one. Mr Savage, with full knowledge of the 'history of the case, was not prepared to say that plaintiff'had shown want of. reasonable knowledge or skill, and would not condemn or even adversely criticise him. In view of the conflicting testimony of two equally reliable expert- witnesses of high standing (the only experts called), he did not think that the defence which had been set tin had been clearly established. Judgment would be entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.