MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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