Medical Negligence As A Criminal Offence
Medical negligence refers to the failure of a medical professional to provide a standard level of care that results in injury or death to the patient. In criminal law, criminal negligence is more serious than civil negligence and implies gross negligence or recklessness resulting in grave harm or death.
🔹 Legal Framework in India
In India, criminal liability for medical negligence is primarily dealt with under:
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Causing death by negligence – punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
Section 337 IPC: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety.
Section 338 IPC: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety.
To establish criminal negligence, mere lack of due care is not enough. There must be gross negligence or recklessness. The threshold for criminal liability is much higher than civil negligence.
🔹 Important Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
A patient was admitted to a hospital due to breathing difficulty.
The oxygen cylinder provided was empty, and no replacement was available.
The patient died due to the absence of oxygen.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for criminal prosecution of doctors.
It emphasized that simple lack of care or error of judgment is not criminal negligence.
To prosecute a doctor under criminal law, the negligence must be gross or of a very high degree.
Significance:
The Court protected medical professionals from frivolous criminal cases.
It stated that a competent medical opinion (expert evidence) is needed before proceeding against doctors.
Introduced the principle: "A doctor is not criminally liable unless there is gross negligence or recklessness."
2. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422
Facts:
A patient died during a nose surgery due to alleged improper administration of anaesthesia.
FIR was lodged against the doctor under Section 304A IPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that mere inadvertence or lack of attention does not make the doctor criminally liable.
There must be gross negligence, bordering on recklessness.
Significance:
Reinforced the high threshold for criminal negligence.
Also influenced the Jacob Mathew judgment that came a year later.
3. Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010) 3 SCC 480
Facts:
The patient was suffering from chronic liver disease and was treated at Batra Hospital.
It was alleged that there was wrong diagnosis and negligence, leading to her death.
Held:
The Supreme Court outlined principles to determine medical negligence.
Held that courts must not interfere in medical judgment unless it's palpably wrong.
Medical negligence cannot be presumed; expert medical evidence is mandatory.
Significance:
Though a civil case, the judgment impacts criminal proceedings by emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny before prosecuting doctors.
4. Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
A patient suffering from renal failure was allegedly given wrong medication by the doctor, which worsened his condition.
The patient filed a complaint of negligence.
Held:
Supreme Court stated that before issuing notice to a doctor, courts should take an expert opinion from a competent doctor or committee.
Without such expert opinion, a criminal complaint should not proceed.
Significance:
The case emphasized protection of medical professionals from harassment through baseless criminal charges.
Reinforced the Jacob Mathew principle.
5. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010) 5 SCC 513
Facts:
A woman suffering from high fever was treated at a private hospital. She died due to wrong treatment (initially diagnosed for typhoid instead of malaria).
The husband filed a complaint for criminal and civil negligence.
Held:
The Court distinguished between ordinary and gross negligence.
Although mostly a consumer case, the Court highlighted that in clear cases of negligence, expert opinion may not always be necessary.
Significance:
Slightly diluted the Jacob Mathew requirement of mandatory expert opinion.
Suggested that in obvious cases, courts can proceed without prior expert advice.
6. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969 AIR 128)
Facts:
A patient died during a routine minor surgery. The family alleged that the doctor failed to take proper post-operative care.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a doctor owes a duty of care in deciding whether to take a case, in deciding treatment, and in administering treatment.
If a doctor fails in any of these duties, he may be held liable.
Significance:
Though the case was primarily about civil negligence, it laid the foundation for how the standard of care is assessed.
Important for determining when negligence crosses over into criminality.
7. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996) 4 SCC 332
Facts:
A homeopathic doctor administered allopathic medicine, leading to the death of the patient.
It was held that the doctor practiced a system of medicine he was not qualified in.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the doctor guilty of negligence per se.
Practicing medicine without being qualified is inherently gross negligence.
Significance:
Important in establishing that unauthorized practice of medicine can amount to criminal negligence.
Clarified the legal consequences of crossing medical practice boundaries.
🔹 Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases:
| Legal Principle | Case Law |
|---|---|
| Gross negligence required for criminal liability | Jacob Mathew (2005), Dr. Suresh Gupta (2004) |
| Expert opinion is mandatory before prosecution | Jacob Mathew (2005), Martin D’Souza (2009) |
| Practicing without qualification is negligence per se | Poonam Verma (1996) |
| Error of judgment ≠ criminal negligence | Dr. Suresh Gupta (2004) |
| Standard of care = Reasonable skill & diligence | Dr. Laxman Joshi (1969) |
| Clear negligence may not require expert opinion | Kishan Rao (2010) |
🔹 Conclusion
Criminal prosecution for medical negligence in India is not meant to punish doctors for every mistake. It is reserved for gross acts of negligence or recklessness that no reasonable doctor would commit. Courts, especially the Supreme Court, have taken a balanced approach — protecting genuine patients while shielding well-intentioned doctors from harassment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments