Medical Malpractice And Criminal Liability
Medical malpractice involves negligence by a medical professional causing harm to a patient. In India, such negligence can lead to:
A. Civil Liability
Compensation under Tort Law
Damages under Consumer Protection Act
B. Criminal Liability
Penal provisions under IPC — mainly Sections 304A, 337, 338
Liability arises only when negligence is gross, reckless, or amounts to disregard for human life
Courts require a very high degree of negligence for criminal conviction to protect doctors from frivolous prosecution.
Below are important cases, each illustrating a different legal principle.
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)
Principle: Standard of criminal negligence for doctors; Bolam Test in India
Facts
A cancer patient died allegedly due to non-availability of emergency oxygen cylinder.
The family alleged negligence by attending doctor Jacob Mathew.
Court’s Reasoning
Introduced the Bolam Test (doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion).
For criminal liability, negligence must be gross or reckless, not merely error of judgment.
Doctors must not be arrested immediately without proper medical expert opinion.
Judgment
Supreme Court acquitted Dr. Mathew.
Held: “Simple lack of care or error of judgment is not enough for criminal liability.”
2. Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital (2010)
Principle: Guidelines on medical negligence—burden of proof on complainant
Facts
A patient died due to complications after heart surgery.
The family alleged negligence by surgeons and hospital.
Court’s Reasoning
Laid eleven guiding principles for medical negligence cases.
Recognized that medicine is not an exact science and 100% success is not guaranteed.
Only gross lapses attract legal liability.
Judgment
Doctors were not held liable.
Reiterated protection for medical professionals acting in good faith.
3. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004)
Principle: Criminal liability only when negligence is “gross” or “reckless”
Facts
A patient died during nasal surgery because the anesthetist allegedly failed to maintain airway clearance.
Court’s Reasoning
Ordinary negligence may attract civil liability, but criminal liability demands higher threshold.
A doctor can be punished only when the act shows such negligence that it reflects utter disregard for patient’s safety.
Judgment
The Supreme Court quashed criminal charges under Section 304A IPC.
4. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)
Principle: Doctors and hospitals come under the Consumer Protection Act
Facts
Question was whether patients can claim compensation for negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Court’s Reasoning
Medical services (except free services) are included under the definition of “service.”
Patients are “consumers.”
Medical negligence can lead to civil liability under CPA.
Judgment
Doctors and hospitals are accountable under consumer law.
Landmark ruling enabling easy compensation process for victims.
5. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998)
Principle: Vicarious liability of hospitals; caregivers can also claim compensation
Facts
A child given wrong injection by nurse suffered cardiac arrest leading to permanent disability.
Parents claimed compensation for negligence.
Court’s Reasoning
Hospital was vicariously liable for acts of its staff.
Parents suffer emotional and financial loss and are entitled to independent compensation.
Judgment
Compensation awarded to both child and parents.
Reinforced strict liability of hospitals for employees.
6. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969)
Principle: Duties of a doctor toward patient
Facts
A young boy with fractured femur developed complications allegedly due to improper treatment.
Court’s Reasoning
Doctors owe duties towards patient:
Duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
Duty of care in deciding treatment
Duty of care in administering the treatment
Failure in any duty amounts to negligence.
Judgment
Doctor was held negligent.
Case laid foundational duties of medical professionals in India.
7. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996)
Principle: Negligence per se; practicing outside one’s specialty
Facts
A homeopathy doctor treated a patient with allopathic medicines.
Patient died.
Court’s Reasoning
Practicing medicine without qualification in that system is negligence per se—no further proof required.
A homeopath cannot legally prescribe allopathic drugs.
Judgment
Doctor held liable for negligence.
Affirmed strict boundaries of medical practice.
8. Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009)
Principle: Highest ever compensation; catastrophic medical errors
Facts
A patient died after excessive and inappropriate steroid administration.
Case went through multiple expert committees and courts.
Court’s Reasoning
Found clear breach of medical protocols.
Act of doctor amounted to gross negligence.
Compensation should reflect severity and lifelong impact on family.
Judgment
One of the highest medical negligence compensations in India.
Showed courts may impose heavy damages in serious malpractice incidents.
SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES
| Principle | Case Establishing It |
|---|---|
| Criminal negligence requires gross recklessness | Jacob Mathew, Suresh Gupta |
| Burden of proof on complainant; medicine not exact science | Kusum Sharma |
| Medical services fall under consumer law | IMA v. Shanta |
| Hospitals liable for staff negligence | Spring Meadows |
| Duties of doctor well defined | Laxman Joshi |
| Practicing outside one’s system is negligence per se | Poonam Verma |
Conclusion
Medical malpractice can lead to civil liability for compensation and criminal liability only when negligence is gross or indicates reckless disregard for life. Indian courts balance between protecting patients’ rights and preventing harassment of doctors for unavoidable complications.
RELATED Blog
comments