Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Medical Negligence Requires 'Gross' Degree of Recklessness for Criminal Liability, Rules High Court

02 November 2024 12:45 PM

By: sayum


High Court quashes FIR against gynecologist, emphasizing the stringent proof needed for criminal prosecution of medical professionals. In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against Dr. Asharani Jain, a senior gynecologist, accused of medical negligence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court underscored the necessity of establishing a high degree of negligence, akin to recklessness, to sustain criminal charges against medical professionals.

The case originated from an incident on December 27, 2016, when Dr. Asharani Jain operated on Smt. Preeti Nema at the Government Hospital in Shujalpur. Following the surgery, Preeti experienced severe complications, and a subsequent operation revealed a sponge left inside her abdomen. This led to the filing of an FIR against Dr. Jain on March 31, 2017, under Sections 269, 336, 337, and 308 of the IPC. Dr. Jain contested the charges, arguing that the negligence could not be conclusively attributed to her, given the lack of definitive evidence about when the sponge was left in the patient's body​​ .

Medical Evidence and Expert Testimonies: The High Court noted that a Medical Board formed as per a prior court directive could not conclusively determine whether the sponge was left during Preeti's first or second surgery. The report highlighted that a sterilized sponge might remain in the body for years without causing immediate issues but could lead to complications after subsequent operations​​ .

The court extensively discussed the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab," emphasizing that for medical negligence to amount to a criminal offense, the negligence must be gross, reflecting a significant departure from standard medical practice. The court reiterated that mere errors or lack of utmost skill do not constitute criminal negligence .

Justice Subodh Abhyankar remarked, "The element of mens rea must be shown to exist 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. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution" .

The High Court's ruling highlights the judiciary's cautious approach towards prosecuting medical professionals, emphasizing the need for substantial and clear evidence of gross negligence. This decision reinforces the legal protection for doctors, ensuring that only cases of significant and evident negligence lead to criminal liability, thereby allowing medical professionals to perform their duties without undue fear of legal repercussions.

Date of Decision:  May 6, 2024

Dr. Asharani Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Latest Legal News