Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court

"A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated 22 September 2026, held that medical professionals cannot be held guilty of negligence merely because they opt for one recognized course of treatment over another, provided they exercise the standard of care expected of an ordinarily competent practitioner.

A bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that "a professional Doctor is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of another professional doctor," emphasizing that courts must protect medical practitioners from being unnecessarily harassed for errors of judgment.

The case originated from a complaint of medical negligence filed against two doctors—Dr. Jaydeep Date and Dr. Munir Sufi Mhaskar—regarding the treatment of urethral strictures. The Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) had initially exonerated the doctors, finding no violation of medical ethics. However, the Medical Council of India (MCI) later overturned this decision in 2013, imposing penalties of suspension ranging from six months to three years, citing professional misconduct and lack of requisite skills in performing specific urological procedures.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the MCI’s appellate order violated the principles of natural justice and whether the doctors' chosen surgical procedures constituted "medical negligence" under the established legal tests (Bolam test) recognized by the Supreme Court of India.

Court Finds Violation Of Natural Justice

The bench noted that the MCI Ethics Committee had failed to serve the doctors with the appeal memorandum and supporting documents, leaving them unable to effectively defend their professional conduct. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the committee lacked a specialist urologist to evaluate the complex surgical procedures in question, rendering their findings technically ill-equipped.

Significant Procedural Irregularity

The Court observed that the MCI order was based on recommendations from meetings held behind the doctors' backs. The bench remarked that the order was "cryptic" and failed to provide any reasoned analysis for overturning the findings of the State Medical Council, which had previously cleared the doctors of negligence.

Cryptic Order Violates Settled Law

The Court observed that the MCI Ethics Committee did not record sufficient reasons for reversing the findings of the MMC. The bench underscored that while disciplinary bodies are not courts, they are nonetheless required to provide a reasoned basis for imposing drastic punishments like the removal of a doctor’s name from the medical register.

Bolam Test and Professional Autonomy

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, the High Court reiterated that medical negligence is only established if the practitioner's conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent person in that field. The Court clarified that a doctor is not required to be a "polymath or prophet" and that a choice between recognized medical procedures does not equate to negligence, even if the result is unsuccessful.

No Liability for Error of Judgment

The Court reaffirmed that medical professionals must be saved from malicious proceedings and that they are entitled to protection as long as they act with reasonable skill. Because the procedures performed by the petitioners—such as cystoscopy and urethral grafting—were recognized medical practices, the Court found that the MCI's finding of "gross professional misconduct" was legally unsustainable.

The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned MCI order dated 24 August 2013. The bench concluded that the petitioners had performed their duties with reasonable competence and that the findings of negligence were contrary to the settled position of law. The ruling serves as a strong precedent against the automatic assumption of negligence when a patient's condition recurs or when a specific surgical approach fails to yield the desired outcome.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026