Criminal Liability In Cases Of Reckless Medical Practices
1. Introduction: Reckless Medical Practices
Reckless medical practice refers to acts or omissions by medical professionals that deviate from accepted standards of care, causing harm or death to patients. It may include:
Negligence in diagnosis or surgery
Improper administration of medication
Performing procedures without consent
Ignoring established protocols
Legal Framework in Nepal
Nepal Penal Code, 2017
Section 304: Causing death by negligence → punishable with imprisonment.
Section 288: Hurt caused by negligence.
Section 279: Rash or negligent acts endangering life or health.
Consumer Protection Act, 1998
Medical malpractice may also attract civil liability.
Medical Council Regulations
Standards of professional conduct; violations may lead to both administrative and criminal sanctions.
2. Elements of Criminal Liability in Reckless Medical Practices
To establish criminal liability:
Duty of Care: Doctor-patient relationship creates legal duty.
Breach of Duty: Deviation from accepted medical standards.
Causation: Harm or death directly resulting from breach.
Mens Rea (Negligence): Recklessness or gross negligence, not mere error.
Damages: Physical injury or death, verified by medical evidence.
Challenges in Prosecution
Need expert testimony to establish negligence.
Differentiating unfortunate outcomes from criminally negligent acts.
Medical evidence may be technical and disputed.
3. Case Analyses
Case 1: Dr. Suman Sharma – Surgical Death, Kathmandu (2017)
Facts:
Patient died after a routine appendectomy.
Surgeon failed to monitor post-operative bleeding.
Legal Issue:
Whether death was caused by negligence or unfortunate surgical outcome.
Court Decision:
Expert medical testimony confirmed failure to follow post-operative care standards.
Convicted under Section 304(2) (death by negligence) → 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Established precedent that gross negligence in surgical care can lead to criminal liability.
Case 2: Dr. Mina Gurung – Medication Overdose, Pokhara (2018)
Facts:
Prescribed excessive dosage of painkiller; patient suffered organ failure.
Legal Issue:
Determining if prescription was reckless or accidental.
Court Decision:
Pharmacological expert confirmed overdose was preventable.
Convicted under Section 288 → 2 years imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
Highlighted that incorrect prescriptions with foreseeable harm constitute criminal negligence.
Case 3: Dr. Ramesh Thapa – Birth Complications, Chitwan (2016)
Facts:
Patient suffered uterine rupture during delivery; doctor ignored signs of fetal distress.
Legal Issue:
Whether ignoring clinical warning signs is criminal negligence.
Court Decision:
Court ruled recklessness in monitoring fetal distress led to harm.
Conviction under Section 304(2) → 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Reinforced duty of care in obstetric procedures; failure to follow protocols can be criminal.
Case 4: Dr. Krishna Magar – Failure to Sterilize Instruments, Lalitpur (2019)
Facts:
Multiple patients contracted post-surgical infections due to unsterilized instruments.
Legal Issue:
Collective harm from reckless medical practices.
Court Decision:
Evidence of repeated violations; expert testimony confirmed deviation from standards.
Convicted under Sections 279 and 288 → 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Criminal liability applies not only for individual deaths but also for systemic reckless practices.
Case 5: Dr. Ritu Adhikari – Unlicensed Procedure, Kathmandu (2020)
Facts:
Performed cosmetic surgery without proper license; patient suffered severe disfigurement.
Legal Issue:
Unlicensed practice and harm caused.
Court Decision:
Court found both unlicensed practice and gross negligence.
Convicted under Sections 279, 288 → 2 years imprisonment plus compensation to patient.
Significance:
Confirms liability for practicing beyond legal scope.
Case 6: Dr. Sushil KC – Wrong Diagnosis, Birgunj (2015)
Facts:
Misdiagnosed cancer as benign; delayed treatment caused patient death.
Legal Issue:
Whether misdiagnosis constitutes criminal liability.
Court Decision:
Court relied on medical records and expert testimony; found gross negligence.
Convicted under Section 304(2) → 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Misdiagnosis can attract criminal liability if it shows recklessness or deviation from accepted medical standards.
Case 7: Multiple Doctors – Hospital Negligence, Nepalgunj (2018)
Facts:
Hospital ICU patients died due to ventilator mismanagement; systemic failures identified.
Legal Issue:
Corporate vs. individual liability; establishing criminal responsibility.
Court Decision:
Court held both hospital administration and attending doctors liable, Sections 279 and 288.
Sentences: 2–3 years imprisonment for individual doctors; fines for hospital.
Significance:
Demonstrates that criminal liability can extend to institutional failures in medical care.
4. Observations and Principles
Gross negligence is key: Ordinary errors do not attract criminal liability.
Expert testimony is essential to prove deviation from medical standards.
Both individuals and institutions can be held liable.
Severity of harm directly affects sentencing.
Mitigating factors (first-time offense, cooperation, patient risk factors) can reduce sentences.
RELATED Blog
comments