Criminal Action Against Doctors Requires Independent Expert Medical Opinion: P&H High Court

The complainant alleged that his wife died due to doctors’ negligence after complications following a surgical delivery.

A Bench of Justice Manisha Batra held, "The investigating officer and the private complainant could not always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of IPC. The criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment."

The Court further noted that once a criminal case is registered, a doctor may be compelled to seek anticipatory or regular bail to avoid arrest, which may or may not be granted. Even if the doctor is ultimately discharged or acquitted, the irreparable damage caused to their professional reputation cannot be compensated by any standard. The Court said, “The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion.”

Senior Advocate P. S. Ahluwalia appeared for the Petitioners.

Background

The case arose from a complaint filed by the husband of the deceased woman, who alleged that his pregnant wife was admitted to the Nursing Home at night after experiencing labour pains. According to the complainant, the doctors initially assured a normal delivery but subsequently performed a surgical procedure, after which the woman delivered twin daughters.

It was alleged that following the delivery, the woman suffered excessive bleeding, her condition worsened, and she was transferred to another hospital. There, doctors allegedly informed the complainant that the earlier surgery had not been properly performed. The woman ultimately succumbed, and her husband attributed her death to the alleged negligence of the doctors who conducted the delivery.

On the basis of preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the doctors to face trial for offences punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC.

Aggrieved by the summoning order, the doctors approached the High Court, contending that there was no medical evidence whatsoever to suggest negligence on their part. They relied on the testimony of a senior medical professional who supervised the woman’s treatment at the subsequent hospital, who categorically stated that there was no negligence in the treatment administered. He clarified that the patient had suffered from postpartum hemorrhage followed by disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), both recognized medical complications.

Additionally, pursuant to earlier directions issued by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the complainant, a medical board constituted by the Civil Surgeon conducted an inquiry into the matter. The board concluded that there was no lapse or negligence on the part of the doctors. It was also noted that a consumer complaint filed by the complainant before the Consumer Forum had been dismissed in default.

Findings

Reiterating the principles laid down in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 836, the High Court emphasized that a mere error of judgment, an accident, or an unsuccessful medical outcome does not constitute criminal negligence. Criminal liability arises only when negligence is so gross that it demonstrates recklessness or a complete lack of due care.

Upon examining the impugned summoning order, the Court noted that the Magistrate had relied primarily on the statements of the complainant, his brother-in-law, and the senior medical professional. However, the Court observed that the medical evidence on record did not support the allegation of negligence. In fact, the victim had admittedly died during the course of medical treatment after delivery, and it was undisputed that she had suffered from postpartum hemorrhage after giving birth to twins.

The Court further noted that the complainant had approached the police, following which an inquiry was conducted by a team of two doctors, who found no negligence on the part of the accused doctors. Despite this, the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of CW-3, which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners.

The Court held, “No finding has been recorded that the medical evidence produced on record pointed out that it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners that resulted into death of the victim. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, is not proved to have properly appreciated the evidence produced on record, especially the medical evidence in the form of testimony of CW-3, which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners.”

The High Court quashed the complaint as well as all consequential proceedings against the doctors holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Cause Title: Vijay Kumar Dhawan & Ors. v. Gurpreet Singh, [2026:PHHC:000895]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate P. S. Ahluwalia, assisted by Advocate H. S. Randhawa

Click here to read/download Order