1. Medical professional challenged quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC following patient death, alleging negligence for leaving the hospital after calling for a physician. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN. B. LOKUR, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7186 of 2014]
Decided On : 06-04-2017
IMPORTANT POINT
Distinction between error of judgment and criminal negligence.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-A – Tort law – Medical negligence – Appellant, a surgeon on call, advising opinion of physician – Physician not turning up – Appellant not waiting for physician and going home – Charged with negligence u/s 304-A – Application u/s 482 CrPC rejected by High Court opining that whether the act of appellant constituted negligence would be determined at trial – Expecting the physician to come soon may be an error of judgment but definitely not that of criminal negligence – Not a case where the appellant should face trial after 20 years of incident. (Para 9, 10)
(2005) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
One Shrikrishna Gawai was admitted on account of injuries suffered in a road accident, in the Irvin Hospital, Amravati on 29.08.1997 for medical treatment. The deceased was suffering from Haemophilia. On 29.08.1997 the patient was treated both by the appellant and Dr. Mohod. On 30 & 31.08.1997, the deceased was attended upon by Dr. Dhirendra Wagh. Thereafter also, the deceased remained in the Hospital under the treatment of the appellant and Dr. Mohod.
Dr. Mohod attended upon the deceased on 05.09.1997 at 9.00 p.m. and found that he was suffering from abdominal pain and, thereafter, a call was sent to the appellant, who was Surgeon on Call. She attended upon the deceased and made a note that a Physician be called.
In the morning on 06.09.1997, the condition of the deceased worsened and he died.
A complaint was lodged in the police station, alleging that the deceased died as a result of negligence of the three doctors.
The appellant herein filed a petition for quashing the charge against her, but this petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur mainly on the ground that the question whether inaction of the appellant in leaving the deceased at about 11.00 p.m. and not waiting for the Physician to turn up, amounted to a rash and negligent act on her behalf, would be decided during trial.
Finding of the Court:
It is not a case where the appellant should face trial after 20 years of incident.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether leaving a patient after calling for a physician constitutes a rash and negligent act warranting criminal trial under Section 304-A IPC. (Para 7 )
3. Leaving the patient after calling for a physician was an error in judgment rather than gross negligence required for criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Criminal negligence for medical professionals requires a gross degree of negligence, far exceeding a simple error of judgment or lack of care. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC quashed. (Para 11 )
6. What is the standard for establishing criminal negligence against a medical professional?
To prosecute a medical professional criminally, it must be shown they did something, or failed to do something, which no medical professional of ordinary prudence would have done. The negligence must be gross or of a very high degree, as a simple error of judgment or lack of care is insufficient. (Para 8 )
7. How does the jurisprudential concept of negligence differ between civil and criminal law?
Civil negligence involves a breach of duty causing damage. Criminal negligence requires the existence of mens rea and a significantly higher degree of negligence—specifically gross negligence—to form the basis for prosecution. (Para 8 )
8. What is the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in criminal medical negligence cases?
Res ipsa loquitur is primarily a rule of evidence used in civil law and torts to determine the onus of proof. It has only limited application in trials involving charges of criminal negligence. (Para 8 )
9. What yardstick is used to judge the professional competence of a doctor in negligence cases?
The standard applied is that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. A doctor is not held to the highest level of expertise, nor is their performance judged by the knowledge available at the date of trial rather than the date of the incident. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein is a doctor and has challenged the Order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application (APL) No. 354 of 2012, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against her under Section 304-A IPC was dismissed.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shrikrishna Gawai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was admitted on account of injuries suffered in a road accident, in the Irvin Hospital, Amravati on 29.08.1997 for medical treatment. It is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased was suffering from Haemophilia, a disease in which there is impairment of blood clotting. Therefore, special attention was required to be paid during the treatment of the patient. It is not disputed that one Dr. Manohar Mohod was on duty as an Emergency Medical Officer. On 29.08.1997 the patient was treated both by the appellant and Dr. Mohod. On 30 & 31.08.1997, the deceased was attended upon by Dr. Dhirendra Wagh. Thereafter also, the deceased remained in the Hospital under the treatment of the appellant and Dr. Mohod.
4. Dr. Mohod, the Emergency Medical Officer attended upon the deceased on 05.09.1997 at 9.00 p.m. and found that he was suffering from abdominal pain and, thereafter, a call was sent to the appellant, who was Surgeon on Call. It is not disputed that the appellant went to the Hospital on being called. She attended upon the deceased and made a note that a Physician be called.
Thereafter, she left the Hospital. In the morning on 06.09.1997, the condition of the deceased worsened and he died.
5. The main allegation against the appellant is that after having called for a Physician, she did not wait in the hospital and did not attend upon the patient, especially when the patient was suffering from Haemophilia. The Physician, Dr. Avinash Choudhary, who is accused No. 1, did not turn up in the hospital. Even next morning on 06.09.1997, when Dr. Mohod again attended upon the deceased, the Physician Dr. Choudhary was not present and, unfortunately, the patient died. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged in the police station, wherein it was alleged by the brother of the deceased that the deceased died as a result of negligence of the three doctors. The complaint was investigated as Crime No. 317 of 1997 which was initially filed against Dr. Avinash Choudhary only but, later on, the names of the appellant Dr. Jayshree Ujwal Ingole and Dr. Manohar Mohod were also included.
6. A separate Departmental Enquiry was also carried out and, in that enquiry, all the three doctors were held negligent in performing their duties. Dr. Mohod was debarred from an annual increment as penalty; the appellant Dr. Jayshree Ingole was permanently prohibited from entering Irvin Hospital, Amravati, and Dr. Avinash Choudhary was transferred. It would be pertinent to mention that Dr. Mohod was discharged in the criminal case on the ground that no case of negligence was made out against him.
7. The appellant herein filed a petition for quashing the charge against her, but this petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur mainly on the ground that the question whether inaction of the appellant in leaving the deceased at about 11.00 p.m. and not waiting for the Physician to turn up, amounted to a rash and negligent act on her behalf, would be decided during trial.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1 wherein this Court held that the court should be circumspect before instituting criminal proceedings against a medical professional. This Court has held that negligence comprises of (i) a legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of; (ii) br
