Criminal Law Must Not Become an Instrument to Intimidate Medical Professionals: Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR for Alleged Medical Negligence

"To attribute intent without overwhelming evidence would not only defy logic but also insult the integrity of the profession itself", - Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur delivered a significant ruling on the criminal liability of medical professionals. The Court quashed FIR No. 388/2024 registered under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), arising from the death of Mrs. Priyanka Bishnoi (R.A.S. officer) following a fibroid surgery. The decision reiterates the high threshold required for prosecuting doctors for criminal negligence, aligning with constitutional protections and judicial precedents like Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1].

In a comprehensive and emphatically reasoned judgment, Justice Farjand Ali quashed criminal proceedings initiated against several doctors and directors of Vasundhara Hospital, Jodhpur, holding that no prima facie case of gross negligence or culpability under Section 105 BNS was made out. The Court emphasized that in absence of mens rea, or “a willful, gross departure from standard medical practice,” criminal prosecution cannot be sustained against medical professionals.

The case arose from a complaint by Mr. Sahiram Bishnoi, whose daughter-in-law, Mrs. Priyanka Bishnoi, was admitted to Vasundhara Hospital on September 5, 2024, for a minor uterine fibroid surgery. Alleging that critical pre-operative protocols, including INR testing, were not followed, and that there was negligence in post-operative care, he claimed the patient’s condition deteriorated due to delayed diagnostics and improper treatment, leading to her death on September 18, 2024.

Following initial police inaction, an FIR was finally registered under Section 105 BNS (formerly Section 304 IPC) after considerable delay. The petitioners, including senior surgeons and directors of the hospital, sought quashing of the FIR on grounds of absence of medical evidence to establish criminal negligence.

High Threshold for Criminal Negligence in Medical Cases

Reaffirming the Bolam test and the rulings in Jacob Mathew and Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Court stated: “The threshold under criminal law requires conduct so grossly negligent that no prudent medical professional would have acted in such a manner.”

It emphasized that mere error of judgment, inadvertent omission, or even an unfortunate outcome does not constitute criminal negligence: “A private complainant, lacking in medical expertise, cannot conclusively impute criminal negligence to a medical practitioner solely on the basis of an unfortunate result or post-operative deterioration.”

Role of Expert Committee and Medical Board

The Court relied heavily on the State-Level and District-Level Expert Committee Reports, which found no prima facie evidence of gross or culpable negligence. Notably, the Court observed: “The opinion of a duly constituted expert committee, having denied the existence of medical negligence in unequivocal terms, cannot be brushed aside in favour of speculative inferences.”

These committees noted that the deceased suffered from known medical complications such as sepsis, DIC, and MODS, and that the cause of death could not be conclusively determined due to lack of complete documentation and postmortem histopathology.

Rejection of Vicarious Liability Against Hospital Directors

Addressing the attempt to implicate hospital directors who were not treating doctors, the Court held: “The petitioners in the present case... are neither the treating physicians nor shown to have played any proximate role in the clinical decision-making... No material has been presented that suggests the petitioners directed, advised, coerced, or otherwise influenced the specific medical intervention.”

Quoting well-established principles, the Court made it clear that vicarious criminal liability cannot be fastened on private hospital administrators unless active participation, wilful neglect, or systemic breakdown is proved.

Clinical Judgment Must Be Protected from Hindsight Bias

In a powerful articulation of judicial restraint, the Court stated: “The retrospective assertion that ‘another action should have been taken,’ or that ‘a different decision might have yielded a better result,’ is often a manifestation of hindsight bias, and not a valid metric for assessing professional culpability.”

It reiterated that the law does not demand omniscience from doctors, only reasonable care based on circumstances.

Ultimately, the High Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be: “...an abuse of the process of law and contrary to the principles laid down in Bolam, Jacob Mathew, and Kusum Sharma.”

The Court noted that permitting such prosecutions without credible expert input would lead to: “...the undue harassment of medical professionals and strike at the very root of responsible clinical autonomy.”

The FIR and all consequential proceedings were accordingly quashed.

The judgment is a seminal reaffirmation of the legal safeguards available to medical professionals against premature or emotionally driven criminal charges. It strikes a delicate but vital balance between the need for patient safety and the protection of doctors from vexatious litigation. The decision is grounded in judicial prudence and reiterates that courts cannot criminalize complex medical decisions unless they are proven to be reckless, deliberate, or outrageously negligent.

Date of Decision: May 5, 2025