Medical negligence is a contentious issue that has garnered significant attention in the realm of healthcare and legal discourse in India. As a nation rapidly advancing in the field of medicine, the complexity and sophistication of healthcare services have increased manifold. However, alongside these advancements, the unfortunate reality of medical negligence has also become more pronounced. Medical negligence, often referred to as medical malpractice, occurs when a healthcare provider fails to meet the standard of care expected in their profession, resulting in harm, injury, or even death to a patient. This multifaceted issue not only poses a grave threat to patient well-being but also raises intricate questions surrounding accountability, ethics, and the legal framework within which healthcare operates in India. In this article, we will study the case- laws pertaining to the criminal liability of doctors in medical negligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law in the matter of medical negligence has been crystallized by Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the decision titled as \u201cJacob Mathew vs State of Punjab and Anothers\u201d (Supra) (2005)6 SCC 1, where occupational negligence is stated to be different from the professional negligence. Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trail. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at the particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recently, the Supreme Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukharjee <\/strong>exhaustively dealt with \u2018medical negligence\u2019 and the standard of care that is required to be exercised by a doctor. The court framed certain principles and observed that there cannot be any doubt or dispute that for establishing medical negligence or deficiency in services, the courts would determine the following rules:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cKusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital\u201d, {Manu\/SC\/0098\/2010\/ (2010)3 SCC 480}, it was held by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India that a doctor often adopts a procedure which involves a higher element of risk, but in doing so he honestly believes that it will provide greater chances of success for the patient. If a doctor has taken a higher risk to redeem the patient out of his\/her suffering and it did not yield the desired result, this may not amount to medical negligence. The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of every doctor to act with a reasonable degree of care. However, no human in this world is perfect and even specialists make mistakes, a doctor can be made liable only if he fails to act with such reasonable care that every doctor with ordinary skills would be able to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cAchutrao Haribhau khodwa and Ors v. the State of Maharashtra\u201d, MANU\/SC\/0600\/1996, The Supreme Court noticed that the medical profession is very wide and there are a number of admissible courses for the same. Therefore, we cannot hold a doctor liable as long as he is performing his duty with due care and caution. Merely because he chooses any other course of action over another, he is not liable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cVinod Jain v. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital & Anr.\u201d (MANU\/SC\/0267\/2019A), <\/em>the Supreme Court has mentioned the factors to be considered while establishing the liability in medical negligence cases. In this case, the appellant challenged the NCDRC in the apex court i.e. the Supreme Court of the country. The Supreme Court upheld NCDRC\u2019s judgment and made the below-mentioned observations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cMartin F.D’Souza v. <\/em>Mohd. Ishfaq\u201d, {Manu\/SC\/0225\/2009, (2009) 3 SCC 1}, paragraph 123 of the judgment submitted as follows: \u201cIt must be remembered that sometimes<\/p>\n\n\n\n despite their best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails. For instance, sometimes despite the best efforts of a surgeon, the patient dies. That does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held to be guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he is\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cJayshree Ujwal Ingole vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.\u2019 (MANU\/SC\/0386\/2017), paragraph 48 of this judgment, it is stated that\u201d Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cIns. Malhotra vs. A. Kriplani and Ors.\u201d (MANU\/SC\/0446\/2009), the supreme court has mentioned that the simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as doctors follow a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh vs. Jaspal Singh and Ors.\u201d(MANU\/SC\/0906\/2009), It is well settled that the standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not; would be that of an ordinary person exercising skill in that profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A negligent act refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precaution or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences. It implies an omission to do something, which a reasonable man, in the given circumstances, would not do. A doctor is not criminally liable for patient\u2019s death, unless his negligence or incompetence passes beyond a mere matter of competence. It is the duty of every doctor to act with a reasonable degree of care. However, no human in this world is perfect and even specialists make mistakes, a doctor can be made liable only if he fails to act with such reasonable care that every doctor with ordinary skills would be able to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By Navin Kumar, Advocate<\/p>\n\n\n\n Medical negligence is a contentious issue that has garnered significant attention in the realm of healthcare and legal discourse in India. As a nation rapidly advancing in the field of medicine, the complexity and sophistication of healthcare services have increased manifold. However, alongside these advancements, the unfortunate reality of medical negligence has also become more […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":465,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[10],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=449"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":462,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449\/revisions\/462"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/navinlaw.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
It was further held as under:-<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\nLaw Offices of Navin Kumar<\/a><\/h5>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"