FIR for Medical Negligence Against Doctors Requires Prior Expert Opinion; Lower Court Orders Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-05-12

Latest Legal Developments.

MP High Court Quashes FIR Order Against Doctors, Cites Need for Prior Expert Opinion in Negligence Cases

Gwalior , MP – The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S.Ahluwalia , has set aside orders from lower courts that directed the registration of an FIR against Dr. Kanti Lahariya and other medical practitioners for alleged medical negligence. The High Court, in its order dated May 5, 2025, reinforced the established legal principle that a criminal investigation against doctors for medical negligence should typically be preceded by a credible prima facie opinion from a competent medical expert.

Case Background

The case, MCRC No. 14792 of 2025, was initiated by Dr. Kanti Lahariya and others challenging an order dated March 28, 2025, by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior , which had upheld a previous order dated February 19, 2025, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class ( JMFC ), Gwalior . The JMFC had allowed an application filed by Dinesh Kumar Sharma (respondent No.1) under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, directing the police to register an FIR against the applicant doctors.

The complainant, Mr. Sharma , alleged that his daughter-in-law, admitted for delivery at Dr. Kanti Lahariya 's clinic and subsequently Sarvodaya Hospital, Gwalior , on January 1, 2024, died on January 15, 2024, due to medical negligence. Allegations included incorrect plasma transfusion, a hasty cesarean operation, and improper post-operative care, leading to multiple organ failure. Mr. Sharma also alleged interpolation of medical records and creation of false documents.

Arguments Presented

Applicants' (Doctors') Counsel, Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma , argued: * The core of the complaint was medical negligence. * Supreme Court precedents, notably Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and subsequent cases like Kusum Sharma , Martin F. D'Souza , and S.K. Jhunjhunwala , mandate that an FIR for medical negligence should not be registered without a prima facie opinion from an independent and competent doctor supporting the charge. * The lower courts allegedly ignored these binding precedents.

Respondent No.1 (Complainant), Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma (in person), argued: * The treatment record was interpolated, specifically citing a change in the time of consent for blood transfusion. * A Dr. Rohit Khandelwal , who allegedly never treated the patient, was billed for, and documents were later forged in his handwriting. * The acts of forgery and concoction of documents take the case beyond mere medical negligence, thus not requiring a prior expert opinion.

High Court's Analysis and Reliance on Precedents

Justice Ahluwalia extensively reviewed Supreme Court jurisprudence on medical negligence, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal negligence. The Court reiterated key principles:

The Jacob Mathew Doctrine: The judgment heavily relied on Jacob Mathew (2005) 6 SCC 1 , which laid down guidelines for prosecuting doctors. It established that "a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence." Similarly, investigating officers should obtain an independent medical opinion.

Gross Negligence for Criminal Liability: For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence must be "gross or of a very high degree." A simple error of judgment or lack of care does not suffice for criminal prosecution.

On Allegations of Record Forgery: The Court examined the complainant's allegations regarding Dr. Rohit Khandelwal and record interpolation. It noted that the complainant, an advocate, did not implead Dr. Khandelwal if he believed Khandelwal forged documents. The Court found the mere assertion that Dr. Khandelwal was not posted at Sarvodaya Hospital insufficient to prove document fabrication, especially since it was conceded that doctors from one private hospital can visit others. The alleged change in consent time was also deemed insignificant on its own, especially without an affidavit from the complainant's son who gave the consent.

CMHO Enquiry Report: The Court considered an enquiry report by a committee appointed by CMHO, Gwalior , which found that the treatment, including platelet transfusion and the C-section, was in line with medical protocols and that the hospital was adequately equipped. The report did "not mention that treatment given by applicants was not in accordance with medical protocol or medical science."

Procedural Lapses by Complainant: The Court noted that the complainant had not impleaded the doctors as respondents in his application under Section 175(3) BNSS, which it viewed as an attempt to obtain an FIR order behind their backs, especially in light of Section 223(1) BNSS requiring an opportunity of hearing for the accused before cognizance.

The Court observed: > "It is really unfortunate that complainant lost his daughter-in-law but until and unless the criminal negligence of doctors is found to be of such a nature which is not expected from specialists or doctors, this Court is of considered opinion that the courts below should not have directed for registration of FIR."

Court's Decision and Liberty Granted

Based on the established legal principles and the facts presented, the High Court concluded that the lower courts erred in directing the registration of an FIR without the prerequisite expert medical opinion.

The Court ordered:

1. The order dated 28.03.2025 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior , and the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by JMFC , Gwalior , were set aside.

2. The application filed by the complainant under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, was dismissed.

3. Crucially, liberty was granted to the complainant "to approach Medical Council of India for constitution of a committee of expert doctors to conduct an enquiry into the allegation of medical negligence and interpolation of records."

4. If such a committee concludes that the doctors were negligent or manipulated records, the complainant would be free to lodge an FIR or a complaint before a competent court.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting medical professionals from unwarranted criminal proceedings while ensuring avenues for genuine grievances involving gross negligence or misconduct are addressed through proper channels, including expert medical bodies.