The Kerala High Court observed that a medical practitioner was liable under Section 304A IPC only when the medical practitioner would have committed a rash or negligent act and for for attracting the offence under Section 304A, the death must also be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.

A medical practitioner was accused of causing death of a remand prisoner on account of medical negligence.

The Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed, "The law is thus well laid down that a medical practitioner can be prosecuted for medical negligence only if the procedure/treatment adopted by him is contrary to the general and approved practice. Moreover, for attracting the offence under Section 304A, the doctor should have committed a rash or negligent act. Here it is essential to note that, as far as rash acts are concerned, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. For attracting the offence under Section 304A, the death must also be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused."

Advocate J. Vishnu represented the Petitioner.

Case Brief

The Petitioner was the night duty on call Medical Officer of the Neuro Surgery Department at Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. A remand prisoner(patient) was brought to the hospital, who had suffered seizures while undergoing judicial custody. The Petitioner was informed by the Senior Resident the report showed brain stem contusion, in addition to increase in size of the previous haemorrhage. Thus, the Petitioner then advised emergency surgery and the patient was posted for emergency decompressive craniectomy.

Although the Petitioner had advised emergency surgery for the patient, it could not be conducted as another patient was undergoing surgery in the only available operation theatre and the surgery of yet another patient had already been scheduled. As a consequence, the patient passed away.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Section 174 CrPC. It was contended that for negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown and to prosecute a medical practitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC, there must be gross negligence.

Court's Analysis

The Court opined that while dealing with medical negligence cases, it is essential for the investigators and the courts to bear in mind the difference between negligence and medical negligence. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

"Medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional breaches his duty of care, causing harm to a patient", added the Court

The Court said, "The law is thus well laid down that a medical practitioner can be prosecuted for medical negligence only if the procedure/treatment adopted by him is contrary to the general and approved practice Moreover, for attracting the offence under Section 304A, the doctor should have committed a rash or negligent act...For attracting the offence under Section 304A, the death must also be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused."

In the light of the facts of the case, the Court opined that the Petitioner cannot also be attributed with gross negligence for his failure to examine the patient physically since the Covid related SoPs prevented such examination.

"It can unhesitatingly be held that the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A amounts to an abuse of process of court", the Court held.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C was allowed.

Cause Title: Dr. Vinu V Gopal V. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation:2025:KER:60125)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates J. Vishnu and Anu Balakrishna Nambiar

Others Present: Advocate Pushpalatha (Sr. PP)

Click here to read/download Order

Justice V. G. Arun

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.