Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of medical negligence under Section 304A IPC, observing that a medical practitioner can be held criminally liable only if a rash or grossly negligent act directly causes a patient’s death.
Justice V.G. Arun, while allowing the plea filed by the doctor, noted:
“A medical practitioner can be prosecuted for medical negligence only if the procedure or treatment adopted is contrary to the general and approved practice. For attracting Section 304A, the doctor must have committed a rash or negligent act.”
Case Background
The matter related to a remand prisoner admitted with head injuries in January 2021. Following seizures and worsening condition, a neurosurgical intervention was advised at the Government Medical College, Kottayam. The petitioner doctor, who was the on-call Medical Officer, directed further scans and pre-operative preparations over the phone.
When his duty ended at 8 a.m., another doctor took over. Despite surgery being advised, it was delayed due to non-availability of the operation theatre. The patient later died, leading to public protests and an FIR under Section 304A IPC.
An Expert Panel concluded that the patient had not received reasonable medical care, resulting in the doctors being booked. However, a subsequent State Level Apex Expert Committee held there was no gross or culpable negligence by the treating doctors.
Court’s Findings
The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents including Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, which held that only “gross negligence” or “recklessness” can attract criminal liability, not mere errors of judgment or delay due to systemic issues.
The bench noted that the petitioner acted promptly after being informed, advised a CT scan and immediate surgery, and could not be faulted for not physically examining the patient since COVID-19 protocols were in force. The subsequent delay was due to operation theatre unavailability, not the doctor’s conduct.
“In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 304A amounts to an abuse of process of court,” the bench held.
Order
The Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2021 of the Crime Branch, CU-II Unit, Ernakulam against the petitioner.
