Medical Negligence, Malpractice, And Professional Liability
🧠 1. Introduction
🔹 Key Concepts
Medical Negligence
Failure of a medical professional to provide the standard of care expected, resulting in injury, harm, or death to a patient.
Malpractice
Professional misconduct or illegal practice by healthcare providers beyond mere negligence.
Includes misdiagnosis, surgical errors, unethical experimentation, or unqualified practice.
Professional Liability
Legal responsibility of doctors, nurses, or hospitals for acts of negligence, omission, or breach of duty.
Can be civil (compensation claims) or criminal (prosecution under IPC).
🔹 Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 304A: Causing death by negligence.
Section 337: Causing hurt by negligent acts.
Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by negligent acts.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Patients are considered consumers; hospitals and doctors are service providers.
Compensation claims for deficiency in service can be filed in Consumer Courts.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 & National Medical Commission Act, 2019
Regulatory framework for medical professional conduct.
Disciplinary actions for professional misconduct.
Civil Liability & Tort Law
Compensation claims for damages due to negligence or malpractice.
⚖️ 2. Case Laws
Case 1: Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969)
Facts:
A patient died after being treated by a general practitioner without proper precautions.
Plaintiff alleged negligence on part of the doctor.
Held:
Supreme Court established the “Bolam Test” in India: A doctor is not negligent if acting according to a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals.
Liability arises only when actions are grossly negligent or reckless.
Importance:
Landmark case defining standard of care in medical negligence in India.
Case 2: Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT Delhi (2004)
Facts:
Baby died due to delayed C-section; parents alleged negligence by the hospital and doctors.
Held:
Supreme Court held that medical negligence requires proof of gross negligence or rashness, not mere error of judgment.
Criminal liability under IPC 304A only arises if the act is rash or grossly negligent.
Importance:
Clarifies criminal liability standards for medical professionals.
Case 3: Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)
Facts:
A patient died after anesthesia overdose during surgery.
Doctor prosecuted under IPC 304A (death by negligence).
Held:
Supreme Court held that doctors cannot be prosecuted for simple errors of judgment, only for gross negligence or reckless acts.
Emphasized expert opinion and standard medical practice as the benchmark.
Importance:
Key case for criminal prosecution threshold in medical negligence.
Case 4: Dr. Kunal Saha v. State of West Bengal (1995)
Facts:
Alleged medical malpractice in surgery led to serious injury to the patient.
Held:
Court awarded compensation under Consumer Protection Act, noting deficiency in service.
Established that even if gross negligence is absent, civil liability arises if service is deficient.
Importance:
Shows civil liability in addition to criminal prosecution for medical malpractice.
Case 5: Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2007)
Facts:
Negligence in post-operative care led to infection and complications.
Held:
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarded compensation.
Hospital held liable for deficiency in service and failing standard protocols.
Importance:
Reinforces accountability of hospitals under consumer law.
Case 6: Dr. Binayak Dey v. State of West Bengal (2001)
Facts:
Patient suffered permanent disability after improper surgical procedure.
Family alleged negligence and lack of informed consent.
Held:
Court highlighted importance of informed consent.
Hospital and doctor liable under IPC 337, 338 for injury caused by negligent acts.
Importance:
Stresses legal obligation of informed consent and standard care.
Case 7: V.K. Sethi v. Dr. Batra Hospital (2010)
Facts:
Patient lost eyesight due to misdiagnosis and delayed treatment.
Held:
Civil compensation awarded under Consumer Protection Act 2019, highlighting deficiency in medical service.
Court emphasized documentation, timely diagnosis, and proper record-keeping as standard care requirements.
Importance:
Shows importance of procedural compliance to avoid liability.
🔹 3. Key Takeaways
Standard of Care: Doctors judged by what a responsible body of professionals would do (Bolam Test).
Civil vs Criminal Liability:
Civil liability (compensation) arises for deficiency of service.
Criminal liability (IPC 304A) arises for gross negligence or recklessness.
Informed Consent: Mandatory to avoid liability for malpractice.
Documentation & Protocols: Hospitals must maintain proper records to defend against negligence claims.
Consumer Protection: Patients have the right to claim compensation for medical errors even if criminal negligence is absent.
🔹 4. Conclusion
Medical negligence and malpractice are sensitive areas balancing professional autonomy and patient safety. Cases like Dr. Joshi, Jacob Mathew, Suresh Gupta, Kusum Sharma, and Dr. Kunal Saha illustrate how Indian courts differentiate ordinary errors from gross negligence, enforce civil liability under Consumer Law, and emphasize informed consent, documentation, and standard of care as crucial safeguards.
RELATED Blog
comments