Doctor Cannot Be Tried For Every Mishap Or Death During Treatment Unless Gross Ignorance Or Negligence Is Proven: Kerala High Court
A kidney transplant patient admitted with abdominal pain died within 34 hours of remote treatment by the doctor, prompting a negligence complaint by the patient’s father.
Justice G Girish, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a gastroenterologist, who had been accused of medical negligence following the death of a 29-year-old kidney transplant patient under his care.
The patient had been admitted to a private hospital in Kochi complaining of abdominal pain and vomiting. Subsequently, he developed complications late in the night. A duty nurse contacted the doctor who was not physically present at the hospital. The doctor advised the administration of medication and the conduct of diagnostic tests over the phone. Despite this, the patient's condition deteriorated, and he passed away within 34 hours due to renal complications.
Following the incident, the patient's father lodged a complaint alleging that his treatment amounted to criminal negligence. Consequently, a criminal case was registered under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with causing death by negligence. Doctor then approached the High Court seeking to quash the case.
A Bench of Justice G Girish emphasized that not every medical mishap or patient death during treatment should be grounds for prosecuting a medical professional. The Court stated, "Only in such cases where there is gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton indifference to the patient’s safety which arose out of gross ignorance or gross negligence, could the Doctor concerned be compelled to face the trial for criminal negligence in the treatment administered by him. For every mishap or death during the treatment, the Doctor concerned cannot be proceeded against for punishment."
The Court further lamented the prevalent tendency to place blame on doctors when treatments are unsuccessful, often without a fair appreciation of the challenges they face. The Court noted, “It is really unfortunate that the tendency to blame the Doctor for the death of the patient, notwithstanding the fact that it was inevitable in the nature of the ailment suffered by him, is far high when compared with the gratitude shown to a medical professional for saving the life of a patient. This does not mean that the mighty hands of law shall always remain tied whenever a complaint sprouts up about rash and negligent conduct of a medical professional. All that is intended to be conveyed is that the authorities concerned shall not be swayed away by the predilections of aggrieved persons whose minds, due to desperation, tend to find fault with the unsuccessful medical practitioner who strived hard to save the life of his patient.”
The Court observed that the materials on record failed to establish any gross negligence or recklessness on doctor’s part. It found that his actions were within the bounds of standard medical practice. Accordingly, the Court held that the initiation of criminal proceedings in this case amounted to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the case against him.
Cause Title: Dr Joseph John v The State of Kerala & Anr., [2025:KER:33952]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates CR Syamkumar, PA Mohammed Shah, Sooraj T Elenjickal, K Arjun Venugopal, VA Haritha, Sidharth B Prasad, R Nandagopal, and Gayathri Muraleedharan.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR.
