The Kerala High Court propounded that every death cannot be a case of medical negligence. There has to be evidence to prove that death was caused due to medical negligence. There should be a direct or proximate connection between the negligent act and death.
Moreover, it was held that mere deviation from the normal professional practice does not tantamount to negligence. For medical negligence, the Prosecution must prove culpable and gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be shown that the medical practitioner failed to do something or did something that no ordinary skilled medical professional would have failed to do or done. A medical practitioner cannot be held guilty merely because he chose an alternative treatment that failed, provided the treatment was accepted by medical science.
Brief Facts:
One young lady visited the Deen Hospital, Punalur for a laparoscopy. However, after the surgery, she developed respiratory complications and later, passed away. A case was registered against the doctors and nurses who operated on her under Sections 304 and 201 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) on the ground of medical negligence. All 6 Accused persons were held guilty under Section 304A r/w 34 of the IPC and hence, they preferred an appeal. The victim preferred an appeal as the Accused were not held guilty under Section 304 IPC.
Observations of the Court:
The Court opined that negligence means a breach of duty of care resulting in injury or damage. It was ruled that per se carelessness is not culpable except where the law has imposed a duty of carefulness.
Concerning medical practice, doctors have a duty of care in deciding the treatment and administration of that treatment. A breach of these duties would give the right to a patient for filing a case on grounds of negligence.
The Bench created a distinction between negligence in civil and criminal law by expounding that for negligence in criminal law, the degree has to be much higher. In India, the test for medical negligence is the ‘Bolam Test’, borrowed from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957 1 W.L.R. 582).
The High Court propounded that every death cannot be a case of medical negligence. There has to be evidence to prove that death was caused due to medical negligence. There should be a direct or proximate connection between the negligent act and death.
Moreover, it was held that mere deviation from the normal professional practice does not tantamount to negligence. For medical negligence, the Prosecution must prove culpable and gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be shown that the medical practitioner failed to do something or did something that no ordinary skilled medical professional would have failed to do or done. A medical practitioner cannot be held guilty merely because he chose an alternative treatment that failed, provided the treatment was accepted by medical science.
In the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest that the medical practitioners were guilty of culpable and gross negligence.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the medical practitioners. Accordingly, all the Accused persons were acquitted.
Case Title: Philips Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. with connected matters
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Case No: CRA(V) No. 589 of 2015 with connected matters
Advocates for Appellants: Advs. Sri. Thampan Thomas, Sri Jacob Chacko, Sri B.V. Joy Sanker, Smt. Jancy Alex, Sri. Shaffie Thomas, Sri. Saneesh Kunjukunju, Sri.P. Vijay Bhanu, Sri. M. Revikrishnan, Sri. Vipin Narayan, S. Sreekumar, Sri M.A. Mohammed Siraj, Sri. Jayanth Muthuraj
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. P. Martin Jose, S. Ananthakrishnan, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, N.K. Subramanian, Smt. T. V. Neema
Amicus Curiae: Adv. Sri. V. Vinay
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
