Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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

Similar News