Medical Negligence Criminal Prosecutions
⚖️ Meaning of Medical Negligence (Criminal Context)
Medical negligence occurs when a doctor or medical professional fails to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence, leading to injury or death of a patient.
While most negligence cases are civil in nature, some acts are so grossly careless that they attract criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
⚖️ Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
Section 304A, IPC – Causing death by negligence
→ Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
Applies when death is caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
Section 337 & 338, IPC – Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash or negligent act.
Section 52, IPC – Defines “good faith” which often protects doctors if they acted honestly and with due care.
🩺 Principles Laid Down by Courts
Mere error of judgment or accident is not criminal negligence.
Criminal negligence requires gross negligence or recklessness.
The conduct must be so negligent that it shows utter disregard for patient safety.
Doctors are expected to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care, not the highest possible skill.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Criminal Medical Negligence
1. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422
Facts:
A patient died during nasal surgery performed by Dr. Suresh Gupta due to asphyxia caused by improper intubation. The doctor was charged under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that criminal prosecution can be launched only when negligence is gross or of a very high degree.
Key Principle:
Mere inadvertence or error of judgment by a medical professional is not criminal negligence.
Significance:
Set the foundation that simple negligence = civil liability,
gross negligence = criminal liability.
2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
A patient died in a hospital due to lack of oxygen supply. The oxygen cylinder brought in was empty. The hospital and doctors were charged under Section 304A IPC.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that for criminal liability to arise, the negligence must be of a gross nature.
It emphasized that a medical professional is not liable merely because things went wrong.
Key Principles Laid Down:
Negligence must be gross or reckless to attract criminal liability.
Before prosecuting a doctor, an independent medical expert’s opinion is mandatory.
Protection should be given to doctors acting in good faith.
Significance:
This case became the leading authority on medical negligence in criminal law in India.
3. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996) 4 SCC 332
Facts:
A homeopathic doctor treated a patient using allopathic medicines, leading to the patient’s death.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the doctor liable for negligence, observing that practicing in a system of medicine one is not qualified for amounts to negligence per se.
Significance:
While this was mainly a civil case, the judgment clarified that such acts may also amount to criminal negligence if death or injury is caused, as it shows total lack of skill and recklessness.
4. Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh (2021) 10 SCC 291
Facts:
A patient died after surgery allegedly due to wrong medication. The doctor was prosecuted under Section 304A IPC.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that in the absence of medical expert evidence showing gross negligence, criminal proceedings cannot continue.
Key Principle:
Mere allegation or suspicion cannot be the basis of criminal prosecution against a doctor.
Significance:
Reinforced the requirement of expert medical opinion before proceeding criminally.
5. Kusum Sharma & Others v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2010) 3 SCC 480
Facts:
The petitioner’s husband died after an operation at a reputed hospital. She alleged negligence on part of the hospital and doctors.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the standard test is whether the doctor acted in accordance with the practice accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals.
Key Principle:
Adopted the Bolam Test (from English law):
A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.
Significance:
Helped define the boundary between civil and criminal liability in medical negligence.
6. Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
The patient alleged wrong treatment leading to deafness. Criminal charges were sought under Section 304A IPC.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that courts must first obtain an expert medical opinion before issuing notice to a doctor. It also warned against unnecessary harassment of doctors.
Key Principle:
A doctor should not be held criminally liable unless the negligence is so gross that no ordinary medical professional would have done it.
Significance:
Strengthened the safeguards for doctors against false criminal charges.
7. State of Haryana v. Santra (2000) 5 SCC 182
Facts:
A woman underwent a sterilization operation. Despite this, she became pregnant. The failure was due to negligence in performing the operation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the doctor liable for negligence, observing that the operation was performed carelessly. However, since it was not a case of gross recklessness, it fell within civil negligence, not criminal.
Significance:
Distinguished between civil negligence (compensation) and criminal negligence (punishment).
8. Dr. Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital & Ors. (2013)
Facts:
An NRI doctor’s wife, Anuradha Saha, died due to wrongful treatment and drug overdose at a reputed hospital in Kolkata.
Judgment:
Though the main outcome was civil compensation (₹6.08 crore), the Supreme Court observed that certain acts of gross professional misconduct can also attract criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC.
Significance:
Demonstrated how gross medical misconduct can overlap with criminal negligence.
🧩 Key Principles Summarized
| Principle | Legal Source |
|---|---|
| Mere error of judgment ≠ Criminal negligence | Jacob Mathew (2005) |
| Gross negligence or recklessness → Criminal liability | Suresh Gupta (2004) |
| Practicing without qualification = Negligence per se | Poonam Verma (1996) |
| Expert medical opinion is mandatory | Jacob Mathew (2005), Martin D’Souza (2009) |
| Bolam test – accepted professional practice | Kusum Sharma (2010) |
⚖️ Conclusion
Criminal prosecution of doctors in India is reserved for rarest of rare cases—where conduct is grossly negligent, reckless, or demonstrates utter disregard for human life.
Courts maintain a careful balance between protecting patients’ rights and safeguarding medical professionals from undue criminal liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments