Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 621 - SC - Indian LawsWhether there was negligence on the part of a medical practitioner? Held that - All the averments made in the complaint, even if held to be proved, do not make out a case of criminal rashness or negligence on the part of the accused appellant. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused-appellant was not a doctor qualified to treat the patient whom he agreed to treat. It is a case of non- availability of oxygen cylinder either because of the hospital having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or because of the gas cylinder being found empty. Then, probably the hospital may be liable in civil law (or may not be we express no opinion thereon) but the accused appellant cannot be proceeded against under Section 304A IPC on the parameters of Bolam s test. The appeals are allowed. The prosecution of the accused appellant under Section 304A/34 IPC is quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Is there a difference in civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence? 2. Whether a different standard is applicable for recording a finding of negligence when a professional, in particular, a doctor, is to be held guilty of negligence? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Difference in Civil and Criminal Law on the Concept of Negligence: Negligence in civil law and criminal law differs significantly. In civil law, negligence is determined by a breach of duty resulting in damage, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of probability. In criminal law, negligence must be gross or of a very high degree, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The element of mens rea (guilty mind) is crucial in criminal negligence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that "simple lack of care" sufficient for civil liability is not enough for criminal liability, which requires a "very high degree of negligence." 2. Standard for Recording Negligence for Professionals: The judgment emphasizes that professional negligence, especially in the medical field, needs to be treated differently. A doctor is not criminally liable unless their negligence shows a disregard for life and safety amounting to a crime against the State. The "Bolam test" is applied, which states that a professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. The judgment reiterates that a doctor should not be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative was available or because they made an error of judgment. Negligence by Professionals: Professionals are expected to possess and exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care. A professional may be held liable for negligence if they lack the requisite skill or fail to exercise their skill with reasonable competence. The judgment cites the Bolam test and subsequent cases to affirm that a doctor is not liable if they acted in accordance with accepted medical practice. Medical Professionals in Criminal Law: The judgment highlights the special treatment of medical professionals under criminal law. Sections 88, 92, and 93 of the Indian Penal Code provide exemptions for acts done in good faith for a person's benefit. The judgment stresses that criminal prosecution of medical professionals should be approached with caution to avoid discouraging them from taking necessary risks in emergencies. Guidelines for Prosecuting Medical Professionals: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for prosecuting doctors under criminal law. A private complaint should be supported by a credible opinion from another competent doctor. The investigating officer should obtain an independent medical opinion before proceeding. Doctors should not be arrested routinely unless necessary for the investigation. Case at Hand: In this case, the complaint did not establish criminal rashness or negligence by the accused doctor. The issue was the non-availability of an oxygen cylinder, which might make the hospital liable in civil law but not the doctor under Section 304A IPC. The appeals were allowed, and the prosecution was quashed. Result: The appeals were allowed, and the prosecution of the accused doctor under Section 304A/34 IPC was quashed. The interlocutory applications were disposed of.
|