Medical Negligence And Criminal Liability
I. MEANING OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
Medical negligence occurs when a doctor or medical professional fails to provide the standard of care that a reasonable practitioner would have, resulting in harm or death to the patient.
It involves three key elements:
Duty of care – owed by doctor to patient.
Breach of duty – failure to exercise proper care.
Damage or injury – caused directly by that breach.
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Under Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 304A: Causing death by negligence.
Section 337 & 338: Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash or negligent act.
2. Civil and Consumer Law:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 – for compensation claims.
Tort law principles – for damages and liability.
III. TESTS FOR DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
Bolam Test (UK Origin)
Adopted in India:
A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that field.
Res Ipsa Loquitur (The Thing Speaks for Itself)
Used when the injury would not normally occur without negligence — for example, leaving surgical instruments inside a patient.
IV. LANDMARK CASES
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)
Facts: A patient died due to alleged negligence; oxygen cylinder was empty during emergency treatment.
Held: Supreme Court held doctors can be criminally liable only when gross negligence is proved.
Principle: Introduced protection for medical professionals against frivolous criminal prosecution.
2. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)
Facts: Issue was whether patients can file complaints under Consumer Protection Act.
Held: Medical services fall under the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act.
Principle: Patients can claim compensation for medical negligence in consumer courts.
3. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996)
Facts: A homeopath treated a patient with allopathic medicine leading to death.
Held: The doctor was held guilty of negligence for acting beyond his qualification.
Principle: Practicing in a system of medicine without qualification amounts to criminal negligence.
4. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004)
Facts: A patient died during nasal surgery due to alleged lack of proper anesthetic care.
Held: Court held there must be gross negligence or recklessness to attract criminal liability under Section 304A IPC.
Principle: Distinguished civil negligence from criminal negligence.
5. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969)
Facts: Negligence during treatment led to patient’s death.
Held: Doctor has a duty to decide whether to treat, what treatment to give, and to administer it carefully.
Principle: Established the standard of reasonable care in medical practice.
6. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998)
Facts: A nurse administered wrong injection leading to coma of a minor child.
Held: Both hospital and staff were liable for negligence.
Principle: Hospitals are vicariously liable for acts of their employees.
7. Dr. Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital (2013)
Facts: Wife of Dr. Saha died due to wrong medication and negligent post-treatment care.
Held: Supreme Court awarded highest-ever compensation for medical negligence in India (₹6 crores).
Principle: Recognized right to life and health as part of Article 21; reinforced hospital liability.
V. PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
| Principle | Explained Through |
|---|---|
| Gross negligence required for criminal liability | Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) |
| Medical service = consumer service | IMA v. V.P. Shantha (1995) |
| Practicing beyond qualification = criminal negligence | Poonam Verma (1996) |
| Hospital’s vicarious liability | Spring Meadows Hospital (1998) |
| Highest compensation and Article 21 link | Dr. Kunal Saha (2013) |
| Reasonable care standard defined | Dr. L.B. Joshi (1969) |
VI. CONCLUSION
Doctors are not criminally liable for every mistake.
Criminal prosecution arises only in cases of gross or reckless negligence.
Hospitals and institutions share liability for their staff.
Patients have legal remedies in both civil and consumer courts.
Ethical and procedural diligence is key to prevent legal consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments