Professional Misconduct And Liability

04 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

I. OVERVIEW

Professional misconduct occurs when a professional fails to adhere to the standards, duties, or ethics of their profession, causing harm, loss, or risk to clients, patients, or the public.

Professional liability arises when a professional is legally accountable for actions or omissions that constitute negligence, malpractice, or ethical violations.

Common professions:

Medical professionals

Lawyers and advocates

Chartered accountants and auditors

Engineers and architects

Company directors and other regulated professionals

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 304A: Death due to negligence

Section 420: Cheating and dishonesty

Civil Law

Tort of negligence: Duty of care, breach, causation, and damage

Professional Statutes and Regulatory Bodies

Medical Council of India (MCI) / National Medical Commission – medical negligence

Bar Council of India – legal profession misconduct

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) – professional misconduct by accountants

Consumer Protection Act

Professionals rendering services for remuneration are accountable under consumer law

Principle: Professionals must act with reasonable skill, diligence, and integrity, failing which they can face civil, criminal, and disciplinary liability.

III. LANDMARK CASES

1. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969)

Facts: Medical negligence causing death due to surgical error.
Held: Court held doctor liable under tort law; emphasized duty of care and reasonable skill.
Significance: Foundation for medical professional liability in India.

2. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (UK, 1957) (Adopted in India)

Facts: Standard of care for doctors assessed.
Held: Professional not negligent if acting in accordance with responsible body of professional opinion.
Significance: Introduced “Bolam Test”, widely used in Indian medical negligence cases.

3. V. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990)

Facts: Lawyer accused of professional misconduct for misappropriating client funds.
Held: Disciplinary action upheld by Bar Council under professional ethics.
Significance: Reinforced fiduciary duty of legal professionals.

4. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta (1995)

Facts: Medical professional charged with negligence in treatment.
Held: Court emphasized doctors’ duty to inform patients, obtain consent, and follow standard care.
Significance: Strengthened patient rights and informed consent requirements.

5. Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1985)

Facts: Engineer’s design errors led to structural damage.
Held: Court held professional liable for breach of duty and negligent service.
Significance: Expanded professional liability to engineering and technical professions.

6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987)

Facts: Chemical company caused industrial disaster.
Held: Court held professionals and management liable for failure to adhere to safety standards.
Significance: Introduced strict liability for professionals in hazardous industries.

7. State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (2001)

Facts: Chartered accountant involved in financial misreporting and audit negligence.
Held: ICAI disciplinary action upheld; professional held liable for misconduct and breach of accounting standards.
Significance: Reinforced accountant’s duty of diligence and ethical compliance.

IV. PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW

Principle	Case Reference
Duty of care and reasonable skill	Dr. L.B. Joshi (1969)
Standard of care measured by professional consensus	Bolam Test (1957)
Fiduciary duty and honesty in legal profession	V. Krishnan (1990)
Informed consent and patient rights	Indian Medical Association v. Shanta (1995)
Professional negligence in technical fields	Laxmi Engineering Works (1985)
Strict liability in hazardous industries	M.C. Mehta (1987)
Ethical compliance in financial audits	Ram Singh (2001)