Navya Health Law

IRAC
ISSUE: Whether the medical negligence of the accused in this case will constitute criminal liability
under section 304 A IPC?
RULES: While the Supreme Court was looking into this matter, it gave its judgment on the following
rules which are –
1. The standards of negligence which are committed by the in-charged doctor or the medical
practitioner for imposing criminal liability.
2. What would be the impact of making a person criminally liable for the negligence which he
has committed, in the medical profession .
ANALYSIS:
In this case, the court has set few standards of negligence which are required for holding a doctor or
a surgeon criminally liable for his act which performing this duty toward his patient and stated that
mere lack of attention, skill, or necessary care wouldn’t make a doctor or a surgeon criminally liable
for his or her act towards the patient. The court has come to the conclusion that a careless act of a
doctor can be treated as a criminal liability only when the act which he /she has committed or
exhibited a gross lack of competence or inaction and wanton indifference to his patient's safety and
which is found to have arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence. But not where the death of
the patient is caused by merely an error of judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be
attached to it=. Theorists have frequently claimed that while negligence implies a careless state of
mind, it should not be considered criminal because mens rea is not present. Since negligence does
not involve any of the elements of will, intention, knowledge, or foresight, it should not be subject to
criminal law. This would amount to applying strict or absolute liability to negligence, which is explicit
unfair. Since negligence is essentially a failure to exploit these capacities, it should be considered
part of mens rea. The doctrine of magna culpa dolus est, which states that "great negligence is equal
to intention," can also be used to address the question of criminal responsibility for medical
negligence. According to this doctrine, when the degree of negligence is gross, it raises the
presumption that the act was intended. The threat of the planned harm is used to determine the
degree of carelessness; the bigger and more immediate the harm, the more likely it was intended. In
some situations, even though the objective is not stated, it is assumed. Because there is a
presumption against strict liability in criminal statutes, there can be no mens rea for the crime if the
alleged negligence is less than gross negligence; hence, such negligence cannot be criminalized,
albeit it may result in civil penalties. The Court in Suresh Gupta similarly cited a policy-based reason
for limiting criminal responsibility for medically negligent conduct to instances of egregious
negligence. The prohibition was deemed necessary to protect medical personnel from being unduly
subject to criminal prosecution and the prospect of a prison sentence, according to the report. The
Court in Suresh Gupta similarly cited a policy-based reason for limiting criminal responsibility for
medical malpractice to instances of egregious negligence. The prohibition was cited as being
required to protect medical practitioners from being unduly subject to criminal liability and the fear
of jail time. If hospitals and doctors were subject to criminal charges for every mistake made, the
doctors would be more focused on limiting their personal liability than providing the best care
possible for their patients. The doctor-patient relationship of trust and confidence would be
damaged as a result of this. The Court came to the conclusion that not every medical accident or
tragedy that occurs while a doctor is treating a patient constitutes a grave mistake for which he or
she can be held accountable for criminal negligence.
The courts have expressed concern about the possible risks of increasing the conviction rate for
doctors, pointing out that this could cause doctors to prioritize their own safety over the welfare of
their patients. Therefore, the court correctly stressed that there must be evidence of willful
wrongdoing in order to find someone guilty under Section 304A. Application of the aforementioned
notion of magna culpa dolus est can satisfy such a condition..
CONCLUSION:
In this case, it has been observed that the doctors and the surgeons won't be held criminally liable
for the death of their patient due to the negligence of the doctor unless it is gross negligence as it in
stated in the case that greater the negligence the greater the intention which as been stated by
using the doctrine of magna culpa dolus est.
It is also been observed by the court that is holding a doctor or a surgeon criminally liable for their
negligence in the act they do to protect their patient's life which results in their death would make
the relationship between the doctor and the patient more complex in which the trust between them
both would be a question mark and the doctor will first look into his safety then trying to protecting
the life of his patient.

Navya Health Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navya Health Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navya Health Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRAC

You might also like