A DOCTOR'S CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 49, 16 July 1912, Page 6

A DOCTOR'S CHARGES.

CLAIM RESISTED. LEA OP UNSKILFUL TREATMENT. COURT FINDS FOR DOCTOR. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Saturday. A judgment of importance was delivered at the Magistrate's Court by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., in a case in which Dr. Hugh Keith claimed the sum of £l2 12s from W. S. Sneller for professional attendance on the latter's wife in the early part of 1907. Mr. Kettle said that in this case the defendant admitted the attendances, and also that, if plaintiff were entitled to recover, the fees charged by him were reasonable. Defendant, however, resisted plaintiff's claim in respect •of the attendance* subsequent to the patient's confinement on the ground that her long indisposition was due to plaintiff's ignorance, w«\nt of skill, and breach of duty, and that, therefore, pliantiff was not entitled to recover for such attendances.

The action was commenced in June, 1911, about four years after the services were rendered, and the doctor's explanation of his delay in prosecuting was that he 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 the courage to sue, and did not desire 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 the case (said Mr. Kettle), if clearly proved, was undoubtedly a sufficient answer to a claim by a practitioner for his fees. 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, exj cusable. If the error was one into which I a prudent man might, under the circum- | stances, honestly fall, he did not think that the practitioner could be held re- | sponsible. Therefore, in the case before I him, he had to decide whether 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. Sneller was 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 one, or suggest a consultation with another medical man. Mr. Kettle I said that his decision must not be based I on his personal opinion of plaintiff's conduct and treatment, but on the weight of 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 effect, that after studying the case very carefully 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. Dr. Savage, an experienced and eminent surgeon, who was called in by Dr Moir to examine Mrs. Sneller immediately after plaintiff had ceased to attend her, expressed the opin- | ion that the ease was a somewhat com- ! plicated an<i troublesome one. Dr. j Savage, with full knowledge of the hisI tory of the case, was not prepared to I say that plaintiff had shown a'want of I reasonable knowledge or skill, and would i not condemn or even adversely criticise i him. In view of the conflicting testi- ', mony of two equally reliable expert witnesses of high standing (the only experts called), he did not think that the defence which had been set had been clearly established. Judgment would be entered for plaintiff for the amount I claimed with costs.