Back
Quashes FIR Against Diagnostic Staff, Says False Positive Report Not
In a significant ruling that delineates the boundary between professional error and criminal liability, the has quashed criminal proceedings against four staff members of a diagnostic centre who were accused of issuing a false positive Hepatitis B report. The Court held that not every instance of medical negligence attracts , and that a mere lapse in following laboratory protocol does not satisfy the stringent threshold of “gross and reckless” negligence required under .
The decision, delivered by Justice N. Tukaramji, reinforces the principle that criminal law is not a tool to discipline every professional shortcoming. It also clarifies that cannot be imposed on supervisory personnel absent specific allegations of their individual involvement.
Background: A Diagnostic Error Triggers Criminal Case
The case originated from a complainant who, before undergoing hernia surgery, visited on , for a major surgical profile. Her blood sample was tested for Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) using a rapid screening test, which returned a “Reactive” result. Based on this report, the complainant suffered severe mental trauma, depression, and suicidal thoughts. She also alleged that the anticipated cost of her surgery increased due to the positive report.
Subsequently, doctors at advised her to undergo another HBsAg test, which came back “Non-Reactive.” Confronted with conflicting reports, the complainant approached the diagnostic centre. The retained blood sample was then tested using the Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (CMIA) method, which also returned a “Non-Reactive” result.
During the police investigation, the accused staff members explained that the first test was only a rapid screening test, which is susceptible to occasional false positives. They further noted that the complainant had declined to provide a fresh blood sample for confirmatory testing. The investigating officer sought an opinion from the Superintendent of , which stated that a reactive HBsAg rapid test should ideally be confirmed through methods like CMIA, CLIA, or ELISA before issuing a final report.
Relying on this opinion, the police concluded that the accused had negligently issued the reactive report without conducting confirmatory testing. A was filed against four individuals—a Consultant Microbiologist, the Associate Director (Microbiology), the General Manager (Operations), and the Cluster Manager (Operations)—under Section 336 IPC for an act endangering the life or personal safety of others.
The Legal Standard: Is
The petitioners moved the High Court under to quash the proceedings. They argued that even if all allegations in the were accepted, the were not made out. The Court agreed, drawing a sharp distinction between civil and .
Justice Tukaramji observed that Section 336 IPC does not criminalise every negligent act. , he held, is “” from . It must be “gross, culpable or of such a high degree as to exhibit utter disregard for the life and safety of others.” The Court quoted from its order:
“Even assuming that there was some lapse in issuing the initial screening report without awaiting confirmatory testing, such omission, at its highest, may furnish a cause of action in civil law or under the consumer protection jurisdiction for alleged . However, such conduct falls far short of satisfying the stringent threshold required for constituting an offence punishable under Section 336 IPC. Criminal law cannot be invoked to punish every instance of . Penal liability arises only where the negligence is so gross and reckless as to endanger human life within the meaning of the Penal Code. Mere inadvertence, an error of judgment, or a lapse in the exercise of due care cannot, by themselves, constitute an offence under Section 336 IPC.”
The Court also examined the expert opinion relied upon by the prosecution. It noted that the opinion did not state that a reactive screening result was necessarily erroneous, nor that issuing such a report without confirmatory testing amounted to gross or . Rather, it merely reflected accepted laboratory protocol that a reactive screening result should ordinarily be followed by confirmatory testing.
“The subsequent CMIA report yielding a non-reactive result merely establishes a discrepancy between the screening test and the confirmatory test. Such discrepancy, by itself, cannot automatically lead to an inference of .”
The diagnostic centre’s own report carried a disclaimer stating that the rapid screening test was not intended to be the sole basis for diagnosis and required clinical correlation and confirmatory testing. The petitioners’ explanation that rapid HBsAg screening tests can occasionally yield false positives was not effectively rebutted by an independent expert opinion meeting the parameters laid down in , the leading judgment on medical negligence.
No Vicarious Liability Without Specific Allegations
Apart from the substantive weakness of the criminal case, the Court found a fatal procedural defect: the failed to attribute any specific act to the four petitioners. The second to fourth petitioners held supervisory and managerial positions—Associate Director, General Manager, and Cluster Manager—while the first was a Consultant Microbiologist.
The Court held that criminal liability is personal in nature unless a statute specifically creates vicarious liability. A person cannot be prosecuted merely because of their official position. The Court observed:
“Their implication appears to be founded primarily upon the official positions held by them within the Diagnostic Centre.”
It found no specific allegations establishing each petitioner's individual involvement, knowledge, or culpable conduct. This reasoning echoes the settled principle that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence linking a superior to the alleged negligent act, criminal proceedings against them cannot be sustained.
Implications for Medical Professionals and Diagnostic Centres
The judgment serves as a crucial reminder that medical errors, whether in diagnosis, lab testing, or treatment, do not automatically translate into criminal offences. The High Court has reaffirmed the robust standard set by the over the years: in the medical context requires a degree of rashness or recklessness that goes beyond a mere failure to follow protocol.
The ruling also offers protection to administrative and supervisory staff in healthcare organisations. In the absence of specific evidence showing their direct involvement in the alleged negligent act, they cannot be drawn into criminal proceedings solely by virtue of their designation.
Legal experts note that the decision will likely discourage the filing of criminal complaints based solely on diagnostic discrepancies, especially where civil remedies under consumer protection law or medical negligence suits are available. It also underscores the importance of obtaining independent expert opinions that specifically address the threshold of , rather than merely citing standard protocols.
Conclusion
By quashing the FIR and the , the has sent a clear message: the criminal justice system must not be used as a shortcut for addressing allegations of medical error. The case of Manisha Singh & Ors v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Petition No. 1226 of 2023) reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal liability requires more than a mistake—it demands conduct that evinces a . For the legal community, this judgment is a valuable reference point in distinguishing between civil and in the context of healthcare.
