Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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