Medical Negligence Criminalization Under Bns
✅ 1. Introduction
Medical negligence refers to a breach of duty of care by a medical professional which results in injury or death of a patient. While most cases are civil in nature (compensation under tort or consumer law), gross or reckless negligence may attract criminal liability.
With the advent of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC, provisions relating to criminal medical negligence are likely carried forward or adapted from:
Section 304A IPC (now under BNS Section 106?): Causing death by negligence
Section 337 & 338 IPC (BNS equivalent): Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash or negligent act
⚖️ In criminal law, only gross or reckless negligence, not mere error of judgment, amounts to an offence.
📜 2. Elements of Criminal Medical Negligence
To hold a medical practitioner criminally liable, the following must be established:
A legal duty of care exists.
There is breach of that duty through gross or reckless negligence.
The breach directly causes harm or death.
The act goes beyond mere error—it must be reckless, indifferent, or grossly negligent.
🧾 3. Relevant Provisions Under BNS
While the BNS hasn’t fundamentally changed the structure of penal provisions for negligence, the equivalent of IPC Section 304A continues to address:
Causing death by negligence: Imprisonment up to 5 years and/or fine.
Specific clauses likely address professional negligence, including that by doctors.
(As BNS is new, jurisprudence is still evolving, but existing case law under IPC remains valid for interpretation.)
🧑⚖️ 4. Key Judicial Guidelines & Case Laws
Case 1: Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
Facts: A patient died in a hospital due to delay in providing oxygen. Allegation was that doctors failed to act promptly.
Held:
Supreme Court laid down guidelines for prosecuting doctors under criminal law.
Only gross negligence or recklessness attracts criminal liability.
An independent medical opinion must be obtained before initiating prosecution.
Importance:
This is the leading case on medical negligence in criminal law. It protects doctors from harassment for genuine errors and strikes a balance between accountability and professional freedom.
Case 2: Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010) 3 SCC 480
Facts: Allegations of wrong diagnosis and improper treatment by hospital staff.
Held:
A mere difference of opinion or error of judgment is not criminal negligence.
Standard of care expected is that of an ordinary skilled professional, not a super-specialist.
Emphasized the importance of professional opinion before proceeding with criminal charges.
Importance:
Reaffirmed that courts must differentiate between civil and criminal negligence, and not criminalize every medical mishap.
Case 3: Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422
Facts: A plastic surgeon was prosecuted under Section 304A IPC after a patient died under anesthesia.
Held:
Supreme Court held that criminal liability arises only when negligence is “gross” or “reckless”.
There must be indifference to the patient’s life or gross lack of competence.
Importance:
This case formed the foundation for Jacob Mathew’s ruling. It introduced the concept of grossness threshold in criminal negligence by doctors.
Case 4: Martin D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1
Facts: Allegations against a doctor for prescribing a medicine that caused renal failure.
Held:
Court reiterated that criminal prosecution must not be used casually against medical professionals.
Courts must take expert opinion before proceeding to avoid unnecessary harassment.
Importance:
Emphasized judicial restraint in accepting criminal complaints unless there is prima facie evidence of recklessness.
Case 5: Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39
Facts: A child was given wrong dosage of injection by a nurse under supervision of a doctor, leading to coma.
Held:
Though primarily a civil case, the Court observed that such gross deviation from standard practice may also attract criminal liability.
Importance:
Highlighted that delegation of responsibility without oversight can amount to gross negligence.
Case 6: Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969) 1 SCR 206
Facts: A doctor failed to take proper care during surgery leading to the patient’s death.
Held:
Though decided under tort law, it laid down the standard of care doctrine.
A doctor owes a duty to treat, diagnose, and follow-up with reasonable skill and competence.
Importance:
Established early principles applied even today to determine breach of duty in medical cases.
Case 7: V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010) 5 SCC 513
Facts: A patient suffering from malaria died due to misdiagnosis and delay in treatment.
Held:
Though a consumer case, the Court acknowledged that gross negligence may justify criminal prosecution.
Differentiated between negligence and gross negligence.
Importance:
Extended application of Jacob Mathew’s test in broader legal contexts.
🧪 5. Summary of Key Legal Tests for Criminal Medical Negligence
| Legal Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Duty of care | A doctor-patient relationship must exist. |
| Breach of duty | A significant departure from standard medical practice. |
| Gross or reckless negligence | Must go beyond ordinary mistake – recklessness, apathy, or indifference. |
| Causation | Breach must directly cause harm or death. |
| Expert medical opinion | Needed before initiating prosecution, as per Jacob Mathew. |
⚖️ 6. Protection for Medical Professionals under Law
No arrest or prosecution without expert committee opinion (Jacob Mathew guidelines).
No vicarious criminal liability unless individual acts are proven.
Section 88 IPC / BNS equivalents: Acts done in good faith for a person's benefit may not attract liability.
🧾 7. Conclusion
Criminal liability for medical negligence under BNS is limited to rare, grossly negligent acts. Indian courts have consistently:
Distinguished civil liability (compensation) from criminal liability (punishment).
Required gross recklessness or culpable indifference to hold doctors criminally liable.
Mandated medical board opinions before FIR or prosecution.
The BNS regime, while modernizing language and structure, retains this cautious, balanced approach. The judiciary continues to uphold both patient rights and protection for ethical medical practice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments