Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court

"So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another, and the result was a failure," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a medical professional cannot be prosecuted for criminal negligence under Section 338 of the IPC simply because a chosen medical procedure resulted in an unfortunate outcome.

A Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed that the medical profession is often called upon to adopt procedures involving higher elements of risk, and a doctor cannot be held liable if they acted in good faith with reasonable skill.

The petitioner, a gynecologist, was booked under Section 338 of the IPC following a complaint by a father alleging medical negligence during the Caesarean birth of his son in 2016, which resulted in a scalp injury. Although the West Bengal Medical Council cleared the doctor of any negligence in 2019, the police had already submitted a charge sheet in 2018. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations in the charge sheet and the nature of the injury suffered by the infant attracted the ingredients of "criminal negligence" under Section 338 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the investigating authorities complied with the mandatory guidelines regarding the prosecution of medical professionals as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Distinction Between Error Of Judgment And Criminal Negligence

The Court emphasized that there is a fundamental difference between a simple error of judgment and the rashness or negligence required to sustain a criminal charge. Relying on the precedent in Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital, the bench noted that a medical practitioner is only liable when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor as long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence.

"Higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgement"

The bench further referred to the landmark judgment in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, observing that in medical emergencies, higher complications often lead to higher chances of an error of judgment. The Court noted that professionals deserve total protection for acts done in good faith. The IPC itself, through Sections 88 and 92, provides adequate protection to medical professionals acting for the benefit of the patient.

Essential Ingredients To Attract Section 338 IPC

The Court observed that to attract Section 338 of the IPC, it must be shown that the accused acted so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. On a close scrutiny of the written complaint, the bench found no evidence of such rashness. It noted that the petitioner was an experienced doctor who adopted a standard procedure, and the minor scalp injury was properly managed post-delivery, with the baby being discharged in a healthy condition.

"No mens rea or rashness found in the adoption of medical procedure"

Mandatory Requirement Of Independent Medical Opinion

A critical observation was made regarding the procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court highlighted that according to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, a private complaint against a doctor should not be entertained unless backed by a credible opinion from another competent doctor. The investigating officer is required to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion, preferably from a government doctor, before proceeding with a charge of rashness or negligence.

"Investigating officer failed to wait for the Medical Council's report"

The Court found it "perfunctory" that the police submitted the charge sheet in December 2018 without waiting for the findings of the West Bengal Medical Council, which were released in March 2019. The Medical Council had categorically found that the injury occurred inadvertently and was managed properly, recommending the closure of the case. The bench noted that the investigating officer ought to have inquired into the fate of the Medical Council proceedings under the Bengal Medical Act, 1914.

Complainant’s Faith In The Doctor Negates Allegations Of Negligence

In an interesting observation, the Court pointed out that the complainant had brought his wife to the same petitioner for a second delivery, despite alleging a similar minor injury during the birth of his first child four years earlier. The bench held that this manifested the patient's faith in the doctor. If the doctor were truly negligent, the family would not have returned to her for a subsequent high-stakes medical procedure.

"Continuation of proceedings would be a sheer abuse of the process of law"

The Court concluded that there was no material to show that the petitioner lacked the qualifications to treat the patient or that there was any negligence in following the medical procedure. Consequently, the bench held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law. The Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings in connection with the Alipore Police Station case.

Date of Decision: 15 June 2026