Doctors Cannot Be Summoned Without Prima Facie Medical Evidence of Gross Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Mere Adverse Outcome Not Sufficient — Magistrate Must Apply Mind and Seek Independent Expert Opinion Before Prosecuting Doctors”, In a significant judgment protecting medical professionals from undue harassment through criminal prosecution, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a complaint and summoning order under Section 304-A IPC, observing that no doctor should be prosecuted without credible, independent medical opinion indicating gross negligence. Justice Manisha Batra, allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reiterated the binding principles laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained on mere allegations or complications arising during medical treatment.

“The learned Magistrate did not refer the complaint to any board of doctors to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion and did not adopt the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew and Martin’s case,” the Court observed, holding that the summoning order suffered from non-application of mind and lacked evidentiary basis.

The petition arose from a criminal complaint filed by Gurpreet Singh, alleging that his wife Sandeep Kaur had died due to negligence during childbirth at Dhawan Nursing Home, where the petitioners were practising doctors. The complaint claimed that she had been operated upon improperly, and that post-partum complications had been mishandled, leading to her death a few days later.

“Summoning Doctors Without Medical Basis Amounts to Abuse of Process”

Justice Batra held that the summoning of the doctors by the Magistrate in Patti, merely on the basis of the complainant’s narrative and without recording a finding of rash or grossly negligent act, was legally unsustainable.

“The testimony of CW-3 Dr. Rana Ranjit Singh… shows that the petitioners had not committed any negligence while treating the victim,” the Court noted. It further added, “The Magistrate failed to properly appreciate this critical medical evidence.”

The Court pointed out that a medical board constituted pursuant to directions of the High Court in an earlier writ petition had already given a clear report exonerating the doctors, and even the police inquiry found no negligence.

“High Degree of Negligence Required for Criminal Prosecution – Mere Complication or Error Not Enough”

Quoting extensively from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that criminal negligence must be of a very high degree and the standard for prosecuting a doctor is distinct from civil liability.

“For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher, i.e., gross or of a very high degree… Res ipsa loquitur cannot be pressed in service to determine per se the liability for negligence under criminal law.”

In the present case, the Court noted that the victim suffered postpartum hemorrhage, a known medical complication, and died despite being referred to a tertiary care hospital, where her uterus was removed in a bid to save her life. The supervising doctor at the referral hospital (CW-3) clearly deposed that there was no medical negligence involved.

“No Doctor Can Be Prosecuted Without Preliminary Expert Review”

The judgment heavily relied on the principle that before a doctor can be summoned to face a criminal trial, there must be a credible medical opinion, preferably from an independent or government medical expert, certifying prima facie medical negligence.

Justice Batra stressed: “A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another competent doctor… The medical opinion produced on record does not show that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioners.”

Consumer Complaint Also Dismissed – No Parallel Finding of Negligence

It was also revealed during the proceedings that the respondent had filed a consumer complaint on the same facts, which was dismissed in default, further weakening the case for criminal prosecution.

In the absence of any positive, convincing, or even prima facie evidence, the Court held that forcing the petitioners to face a criminal trial would be unjustified and would amount to “misuse of the criminal process”.

Court Reaffirms Safeguards for Medical Professionals Against Frivolous Prosecution

Reiterating the spirit of Jacob Mathew, the Court emphasized that “the criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment”, and that even if exonerated, the loss to reputation and career is irreparable.

“Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice where criminal proceedings are initiated without adherence to legal safeguards,” Justice Batra noted.

Complaint and Summoning Order Quashed

In conclusion, the High Court found that neither the complaint nor the summoning order satisfied the legal threshold for prosecuting a doctor under Section 304-A IPC, and accordingly quashed Criminal Complaint No. 164 of 2015 along with the summoning order dated 23.03.2018 and all consequential proceedings.

“The evidence produced on record cannot be stated to be prima facie sufficient to support the allegations of medical negligence and rashness on the part of the petitioners,” the Court firmly held.

Date of Decision: 8 January 2026