This article is written by Harshit Kumar. It seeks to discuss in detail the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, regarding the negligence by the doctor. It covers the important facts of the case, including the issue raised, the arguments of both parties, the law involved, and the judgement of the case, with important case laws included in this judgement. It also includes the discussion of sections such as Sections 304A and 34 of the IPC, along with Section 482 of the CrPC. Furthermore, it also includes the significance of the case and what the essentials of medical negligence are. 

Introduction 

In the landmark case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court of India laid down certain guidelines that are to be followed by every court while deciding the case, which involves the question of medical negligence. The concept of negligence in tort law originated in English law, and the same law plays a significant role in India in civil law and criminal law. The principle of medical negligence was not an offence in the tort law, but it was incorporated in it as a simple tort that occurs when a patient receives incorrect treatment, which may be because of the fault of the doctor or the hospital staff, which leads to the death of the patient. 

The comparison of the concerned doctor to a fellow practitioner in the same profession as opposed to an average prudent individual establishes the standard of care. In cases of medical negligence, there are two points that can happen: either the staff or the doctor acted carelessly, or both the staff and the doctor may have acted carelessly. Joint and several liabilities, which allocate obligations equally between the hospital and the doctor, are typically applicable. 

Download Now

Details of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)

Case name – Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab

Equivalent Citations – AIR 2005 SC 3180; (2005) 6 SCC 1; 2005 CRILJ 3710

Acts involved – Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr. P.C), and Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Important provisions – Section 304A and 34 of IPC, along with Section 482 of Cr.P.C

Court- Supreme Court of India

Bench- CJI R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasurbramanyan.

Petitioners- Jacob Mathew

Respondents- State of Punjab

Judgement Date- 05/08/2005

Facts of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 

According to the case, Jeevan Lal Sharma was admitted to a private ward in a CWC Hospital, which was situated in Ludhiana. On February 22, 1995, the patient suffered from breathing problems. Vijay Sharma, who was the older brother of the informant was present there and after seeing his father in pain, he called the nurse and doctor, but even after calling them, no one arrived there for about 20-25 minutes. 

After 25 minutes, two doctors visited the patient room, named Jacob Mathew and Allen Joseph. After coming there, he immediately ordered the oxygen gas cylinder to be connected to the mouth of the patient. However, after doing so, the patient started to feel more problems because it was found that the oxygen gas cylinder was empty, and after searching all over, it was discovered that there was no other gas cylinder present in the hospital. 

Vijay Sharma started searching for another gas cylinder, but after 7 minutes, the doctors confirmed that the patient was dead. The younger son of the late Jeevan Lal Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma, filed an FIR under Section 304A of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. According to the FIR, it has been further stated that the informant’s father’s death was brought on by the negligence of the doctors, and nurses and the lack of availability of the oxygen gas cylinder in the hospital. The main reason for the death was the negligence in fixing an empty oxygen gas cylinder to the mouth of the patient, which caused problems in breathing and, as a result, the patient stopped breathing completely. The informant mentioned that the negligence of the hospital management led to the death of his father, and after receiving the dead body from the hospital, he sent it to his village for final cremation. 

On the basis of the statement of Ashok Kumar Sharma in the FIR, a case was made under Sections 304A and 34 of the IPC, and the investigation was started thereafter. The charges were made by the judicial magistrate of the First class of Ludhiana. Both the doctors who were the accused in this case filed a revision petition against the order of the first-class judicial magistrate of Ludhiana before the session judge of Ludhiana, which was later dismissed by the learned session judge. 

On the charges having been filed against the doctors and dismissed by the learned Session Judge, the accused doctors moved to the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab under 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash all the proceedings against both of them. Before the High Court, it was argued that throughout the voluminous records that made up the police’s challan filed against the accused, there was not a single specific accusation of an act of commission or omission against both of the accused doctors. 

The Hon’ble Judge of the High Court disposed off the petition vide order dated January 18, 2002. After that, a recall request for the aforementioned order was made, but it was also denied on January 24, 2003. 

After the dismissal of the application for recalling the above order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the deceased Jeevan Lal Sharma had advanced cancer, and according to the evidence at hand, he had not been admitted to any hospital in the country. 

The matter came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which placed it before the two-judge bench. Both the judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the recent judgement of the two-judge bench in the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2004). However, the Hon’ble Judges expressed doubts about the revision of the ruling in that case and stated via order dated 09 September 2004 that they thought the case should have been heard by a three-judge bench instead of a two-judge bench. Thereafter, after this suggestion, a three-judge bench was constituted, which was headed by CJI R.C. Lahoti, whereas Justice G.P. Mathur and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan were the other two judges of the panel. 

Issues raised 

There were two main issues that arose in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also asked the Medical Council of India to assist them during the proceeding. 

  1. The first issue that was asked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether there is any test through which it can be determined whether the doctor acted in negligence or not while performing his/her duty.
  2. The second issue that was asked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether there is any difference between civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence.

Arguments of the parties in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)

Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, should not be applied in this case because Section 304A of IPC deals with the case related to death caused by negligence and this medical negligence should not be involved in the same term. According to the petitioner, it should be dealt with separately under the medical ethics and professions rather than that of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 

It was emphasised by the petitioner that medical professionals should be held to the standard of care and caution required from them to be followed within the field. There may be a certain chance of error in treatment, but that doesn’t mean it should be held under criminal liability. It was contended that such instancess should not be punishable under Criminal laws.

The counsel for the petitioner raised the concern about the ceiling effect on applying criminal liability to doctors and other medical professionals. According to the Petitioner, when there is a kind of fear of legal action, it may affect the risk-taking ability of the doctor while treating the patient. It will also affect the decision-making ability in emergency times because doctors will try to save themselves first while giving treatment,

Respondent

The counsel for the respondent argued that the main reason for the death of the patient was the negligence act done by Dr. Mathew, which makes him liable, and thus the case under consideration ought to have been included in the negligence in criminal law. The respondent’s counsel argued that the failure to provide the proper care and caution led to the death of the patient.

The counsel for the respondent drew attention to the point that, when any action of the medical practitioner results in the death of the patient, then he should be held liable for his actions. This will result in the doctors ensuring a high level of care to the patients while giving them treatment. 

It was asserted that the medical professional holds the duty toward his/her patient to provide utmost care and failure to do so will result in the breach of trust, which a hospital holds while admitting the patient. 

The respondent’s counsel argued that if doctors are allowed to escape from the act of recklessness or negligence, then it will lower the amount of trust in the medical field. Punishing the offender for doing such a negligent act in the medical treatment of the patient will maintain the trust of the person in the medical profession. 

Laws discussed in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)

Section 304A IPC

According to Section 304A of the IPC, which deals with the provision related to causing death by negligence, whoever causes the death of any person because of negligence, which may not amount to culpable homicide, will be punishable under the IPC. The term of punishment in this section may extend to 2 years with a fine, without a fine, or both. The concept of negligence is different in both civil and criminal law. If a particular act amounts to negligence under civil law, then it may be possible that the same act will not be considered an offence under criminal law. 

Essential ingredients of Section 304A of IPC

  1. The Act leads to the death of a person
  2. The death must be done due to negligent or rash acts by the accused.
  3. The act shall not amount to culpable homicide
  4. Mens rea ( Intention )

Negligence under civil law and criminal law. 

In the case of Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka (2019), the Supreme Court has dealt with and pointed out with reason the distinction between negligence in civil law and in criminal law.  If we are talking about the liability of a person in any offence that may come under tort law, then it will only be decided by the amount of damages incurred to them, whereas in the case of criminal law, it will not only be decided by the amount of damage received but also by the degree of negligence. In order to establish liability under criminal law, the level of negligence must be higher than the amount of negligence sufficient to establish liability under civil law for damages, meaning it must be egregious or extremely high. Whereas in civil law, negligence is neither egregious nor of a higher degree, which may give rise to a lawsuit, but it cannot be the basis for the preceding.  

Criminal negligence under the Indian Penal Code

Criminal litigation

Criminal negligence as enumerated under section 304A is the egregious and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Negligence is the act of doing something that a reasonable man, guided by those considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something that a prudent and reasonable man would do.  

Mens Rea

The element of mens rea must be proven for negligence to be considered a criminal offence. In terms of carelessness, mens rea in criminal law is determined by recklessness. Recklessness and moral responsibility are not rooted in a wish to do damage. It resides in the proximity of the reckless state of mind and the mental state that exists when harm is intended. Putting this in another way, it seems that the possible outcomes are not taken into consideration. 

Rash Acts

In the case of criminal rashness, it must be proven to have occurred, meaning that the rashness had to be such that it amounted to accepting a risk knowing that it was likely going to cause harm. The accused faced the risk of committing the crime with recklessness and disregard for repercussions, which introduces the element of criminality. If the prosecution wants to prove carelessness, it must be wilful or egregious, not just a matter of making a mistake in judgement. 

Medical Negligence 

Professional negligence is a condition that occurs when a professional, be it a lawyer, an architect, or a doctor, fails to carry out the tasks or responsibilities that they were expressly engaged to complete for their clients. When it comes to describing wrongdoing or omissions committed by medical personnel when practising medicine on patients, the term “Medical Negligence” is broad and has grown in use. It is important to note that none of the current Indian laws define or make any mention of this term.

Earlier, it was considered that medical negligence was a criminal offence and not a civil offence. But as time passed, the view of the judiciary also changed, and it was noted after some time that medical negligence started to be considered a civil wrong as opposed to a criminal law. 

The development of common law concerning medical negligence can be traced to a turning point in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932). The landmark case has had a considerable impact on the legal framework around professional negligence, particularly in the medical industry. 

A diversified approach is required to combat the neglect in the medical field. More consideration was necessary when inferring haste or negligence, particularly in the case of medical experts. An inadvertent incidence, a careless error, or a basic lack of attention are not usually sufficient evidence of medical negligence.

It’s crucial to recognize that identifying inconsistencies alone is not sufficient to establish medical malpractice. A doctor should not be held responsible for negligence just because there may have been a better course of action or more advanced treatment alternatives available. Similarly, the selection of a particular strategy need not be deemed irresponsible just because a more experienced practitioner would have gone with a different course of action.

Whether or not the doctor followed a course of action that was considered appropriate in the medical community at the time is the primary factor in determining medical negligence. Rather than comparing the professional’s actions to hypothetical alternatives or the decisions of more experienced practitioners, the emphasis should be on whether the course of action is deemed reasonable and appropriate within the then-current standards of the medical profession. 

The BOLAM Rule embodies the fundamental concept that governs medical negligence, which has been generally accepted and upheld by the Supreme Court. This criterion is used as the benchmark for assessing medical negligence in court cases and was upheld in the landmark decision of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005). The BOLAM rule emphasises how important it is to evaluate a professional’s behaviour in light of the recognised norms of their medical community. It offers a crucial framework for determining whether a practitioner has complied with these norms. 

Essentials of Medical Negligence

In the case of medical negligence, it involves a situation in which a healthcare professional, either doctors or hospital staff, neglects their duty of care, resulting in harm or injury to the patient. A total of 5 essential components of medical negligence can be connected as per various rulings of the courts and the concerned laws which have been discussed in the present article, which are mentioned below:

  1. Duty of care: A fundamental concept for the law relating to medical negligence is the duty of care, which highlights the ethical and legal responsibility of healthcare practitioners to fulfil the standard of care expected in their field. Once a doctor and patient establish a relationship, the medical professionals must operate in the patient’s best interest while demonstrating a level of expertise and commitment that is consistent with recognised medical standards. 
  2. Breach of Duty: This is also an important component of medical negligence, which calls for proof that a healthcare provider deviated from the accepted standard of care in a particular circumstance. This violation denotes an inability to provide the patient with the set duty of care. It entails proving that the professional’s actions or inactions fall short of the acceptable norm, highlighting the divergence from the level of expertise and diligence that is typical in their field. 
  3. Causation: Establishing a direct connection in medical negligence between the defendant’s breach of duty and the patient’s harm, is necessary to prove causation. It must be shown that the injury was directly caused by negligence, which constituted a significant contributing element. This crucial component emphasises that if there had been no breach, the harm would not have happened. By assessing whether the healthcare professional’s acts or omissions were a substantial and predictable cause of the patient’s damage, the legal examination focuses on the critical role that the healthcare professional’s breach of duty played in creating negative results for the patient. 
  4. Damages: In the case of medical negligence, the patient must present verifiable evidence of quantifiable harm brought on by the healthcare provider’s carelessness for their claim to be accepted. These losses might be in the form of physical, emotional, or financial losses as a result of the negligent act. The requirement emphasises the necessity of a distinct and direct connection between the patient’s damages and carelessness. Proof of real damages is necessary to establish the legal foundation for demanding compensation since it verifies the actual and measurable impact of negligence on the patient’s overall quality of life and well-being.
  5. Standard of care: The expected degree of competence and diligence that a fairly qualified expert in the same field would deliver is referred to as the standard of care in the healthcare industry. It emphasises adherence to accepted standards and practices and acts as the benchmark by which healthcare practitioners are judged. Expert testimony, which is frequently used in court, presents the opinion of certified professionals and aids in establishing the applicable standard.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 34 of the IPC, talks about the term ‘common intention’. A common intention is defined as the commencement of a certain action or doing something together, which can be considered a pre-planned act. But in order to prove a certain criminal act under common intention, the act done must be proven to have existed prior to the commission of the act, and there should be no large gap between both. 

Objective of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 34 is there to prevent a situation where it is very difficult to discern between unlawful acts committed by one person working in a group for a common purpose or to show what role all the members played.  Any person taking part in committing a criminal offence directly or indirectly is held liable for his participation in the offence committed, even though the accused has not actively participated in the commencement of the act. There must be a specific aim, which is the ultimate common goal of all the individuals in the group. Every individual, though directly or indirectly, involved in the commission of the offence will be held liable under Section 34 of the IPC. 

In the present case, the counsel for the respondent, accused two doctors (Jacob Mathew and Allen Joseph), nurses, and other hospital staff of the death of the patient but the Supreme Court made it clear that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code will be applied when there is a common intention of doing any act. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code should be limited. 

The Supreme Court also held that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code will only be applicable where there is evidence that establishes the common intention of the accused in committing the criminal act. The court further held that invoking Section 34 to hold all the medical staff liable for medical negligence would not be correct.

Section 482 Cr.P.C

The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is available only to the High Court, but it does not contain any new power other than as mentioned; it just gives the High Court an inherent power. This section states that nothing in this code can put any effect on the inherent power of the High Court in making such an order as they think necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent justice. 

In the present case, the accused used the benefit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C to seek relief in order to quash the whole criminal proceeding that was initiated against them which included medical negligence resulting in the death of the patient.

Case Laws

  1. The legal precedent established by the Privy Council in John Oni Akerele v. R, (1942), is very important. In this case, a medical professional with the necessary qualification administered an injection of sobita, which contained Sodium Bismuth Tartrate according to the British Pharmacopoeia. However, what was actually given was a Sobita overdose. The patient passed away. The doctor faced accusations of recklessness, homicide, and negligence. He received a conviction. The matter was reached in the form of an appeal before the House of Lords. After hearing the appeal, the conviction was revoked by the Court. 

The Court’s’ findings can be summed up as follows – 

  1. A doctor’s negligence or incompetence must go beyond a simple matter of compensation between subjects and demonstrate such disdain for other people’s lives and safety as to constitute a crime against the state in order for a doctor to be held criminally liable for a patient’s death.
  2. That the negligence must be gross in order to qualify as such, and that neither a jury nor a court can elevate negligence of a lower calibre to gross negligence by simply using that term.
  3. Without using examples derived from real court rulings, it is hard to define culpable or criminal carelessness or to make the distinction between actionable and criminal negligence understandable.

It is necessary to take the most positive view of an accused medical man’s actions since it would seriously harm the medical profession’s ability to operate efficiently if no one was allowed to deliver medication without wearing a halter around the neck. The Lordships rejected the idea that the mere fact that several people became extremely ill following an injection of Sobita from the appellant coupled with a finding that a high degree of care was not exercised. 

  1. In the case of Juggan Khan v. State of M.P, (1965), a leaf of datura and 24 drops of stramonium were given to the accused, who was suffering from guinea worm, a registered homoeopath. Before giving it to the patient, it was not searched by the accused as to what happens when such drugs are given to people. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of its claim that the datura leaf is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Section 302 of IPC was eliminated against the accused by the court. But after it was discovered that datura and stramonium leaves are toxic and that datura leaves are only used in Ayurvedic medicine, not in any other medical system, to treat guinea worms, the accused’s prescription of toxic materials without considering their effects, it was declared to be rash and negligent. 
  2. In the case of Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969), the Fatal Accident Act of 1855 was applied. The point that was discussed in the present case was: what are the obligations that the doctors must perform while treating their patients? The court determined that an individual who presents himself as prepared to offer medical advice and treatment after completing their study implicitly commits to having the necessary expertise and knowledge for that purpose. When a patient approaches such a person, he owes him various duties, such as a duty of care while determining whether to accept the ease and a duty of care when administering that course of action. 

The patient has a right to sue for negligence if any of those obligations are not fulfilled. In addition to exercising a reasonable level of caution, the practitioner must bring to the work a fair level of competence and knowledge. Without a doubt, the doctor has some freedom in deciding what course of action to recommend for the patient, and this freedom is comparatively greater in emergency situations. But it does not mean that the doctor performs such an action negligently. They have to exercise proper care and give treatment as per the needs of the patient. In this case, the patient’s death was caused by the shock from the doctor’s effort to reduce the fracture without using the basic prudence of giving anaesthesia.  

Judgement in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 

The case was brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where a two-judge bench was formed. Both judges cited a decision, which was also given by a two-judge bench in the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2004), They were not quite convinced that the position stated in that case was correct. They declared in an order dated 9 September 2004, that they thought the case should be heard by the three-judge’s bench. As a result, the hearing for that matter was fixed before the three-judge bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued certain guidelines, which are to be followed when there is any medical negligence in the matter.

The bench said that it was crucial to clarify that it does not mean that doctors cannot face consequences for acts of negligence or recklessness. The goal is to emphasise that, for the good of society, care and caution are essential. Doctors need to be shielded from unjust or unfounded punishment since they give some of the highest services to humanity. Criminal procedures are sometimes used by complainants to coerce medical providers into paying them unjustly or without cause. Malicious acts like these need to be stopped. 

It was further observed that the Medical Council of India should advise the Government of India and the State Government on developing and releasing executive instructions or statutory rules that include detailed instructions in order to solve this matter. The Court suggested the establishment of some rules for future instances involving the prosecution of doctors for crimes including criminal negligence or recklessness until such standards are created. A trustworthy assessment from another licensed doctor supporting the accusation of recklessness or carelessness on the part of the accused doctor is a sufficient kind of prima facie evidence that the court should consider before accepting a private complaint. 

Further, the court said, prior to taking any further action against the physician who is being accused of carelessness or recklessness, the investigating officer ought to get an unbiased and qualified medical opinion, preferably from a government doctor who has a proactive mind in the relevant medical field. Based on the information gathered from the inquiry, the doctor (Jacob Mathews) is supposed to offer a fair and objective assessment. It is not appropriate for a doctor who has been charged with recklessness or carelessness to be habitually arrested for that reason alone. The doctor should not be arrested unless it is required to be protected by the investigation, gather evidence, or is useless. There is a good reason to think that the doctor will be able to escape prosecution if they are not detained. 

The court determined that they were convinced by the argument made before them. It was said that even if they assume that all the claims made by the complainant in the complaint are true, then also it does not form a case of criminal negligence or even recklessness on the part of the accused-appellant. The complainant has taken the non-availability of oxygen gas cylinders as the main cause of death, noting that the doctors who are accused were not qualified doctors to treat the patient they agreed to treat.

According to the complaint made, this was a situation where the non-availability of an oxygen gas cylinder, which might be due to the failure on the part of the hospital to provide one or because the cylinder was found empty, was the main issue. In this case, it was possible that the hospital might be held liable for civil liability but the accused doctor cannot be held liable and be prosecuted under Section 304A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is based on the BOLAM’s test. Therefore, the charge framed under Section 304A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accused medical professionals was dismissed.

BOLAM Test

This test was laid down in the case of Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957). In 1954, John Hector Bolam underwent Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) to cure his clinical depression. The medical community gave different views regarding the best ways to reduce the hazards of ECT-induced convulsions. As a result of the ineffectiveness of the physical restraint, Bolam suffered a pelvic fracture. In court, he argued that the hospital had been careless and the doctor had violated the standard of care when providing treatment. This case serves as the locus classicus for developing the legal standard of care that doctors are supposed to provide. Mr. Justice McNair gave the jury the crucial instructions that laid the groundwork for this historic case.

This test, which originated from BOLAM’s situation, has extended to become a fundamental component of legal evaluations of medical negligence and has shaped the standards by which doctors are held accountable for the care they give to their patients.

Analysis of the Jacob Mathew’s case

According to BOLAM’s test, a doctor cannot be held accountable for medical negligence if they follow the guidelines set out by the appropriate authority of the profession in a particular circumstance. Given that the doctor in question carried out their duties with diligence, they were not held accountable in the aforementioned situation. However, the hospital administration’s carelessness was the reason for the patient’s unfavourable outcome. 

In a technical sense, the hospital staff’s actions might be considered medical negligence. The hospital’s management has an obligation to offer patients high-quality services; hence, this circumstance could be covered by the consumer protection law. In this instance, they did not fulfil their obligation to provide their patients with superior care. 

Conclusion 

The concept of medical negligence is not a direct form of tort, it rather comes under the concept of negligence in tort law. The term negligence originated from English tort law and holds an important role in the Indian legal system. It emerges from the simple tort when any person admitted to any hospital receives the wrong treatment, which results in difficulties. It might be possible that the little problem leads to a serious or life-ending situation. In cases of medical negligence, it is the duty of the doctor to exercise reasonable care and caution while giving any treatment to the patient admitted to the hospital. 

Rather than comparing the doctor in question to the average sensible person, the standard of care is established by comparing them to peers in the medical field. There can be two possible causes of negligence: 

i. either the staff performed any act without taking any due care, or 

ii. the doctor performed his duty carelessly while giving the required treatment or medicine.

In some cases, both the staff and the doctors might have done the act together, which means that the doctor and the hospital will decide, based on their agreement, that how much of a liability they hold up separately.

In the cases where there are blatant procedural breaches or conduct that are judged to be reckless and irrational, courts often rely on expert testimony and evidence to decide negligence. In giving these decisions, the precision and accuracy that the law tries to find can be quite tough to accomplish, because of the substantial objectivity involved. As a result, as the Apex Court has described the law on medical negligence, therefore, a well-established legislative framework is needed for consumer protection in India, and that too not just in the medical field but in other professions as well.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is medical negligence?

Medical negligence refers to the failure of a healthcare provider to meet the standard of care expected in their profession, resulting in harm to a patient. It involves actions or omissions that deviate from accepted medical standards, leading to injury or death.

Who can be held liable for medical negligence?

Any healthcare provider, including doctors, nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists, pharmacists, and hospitals, can be held liable for medical negligence if their actions or omissions result in harm to a patient.

What role does medical education and training play in reducing instances of medical negligence?

Medical education and training are crucial in equipping healthcare professionals with the knowledge, skills, and ethical standards necessary to provide safe and effective patient care. Continuous learning and professional development help healthcare providers stay updated on evidence-based practice, advancements in technology, and changes in healthcare regulations, ultimately reducing the likelihood of medical negligence.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here