Thiruvananthapuram: The Kerala High Court has ruled that a lab technician may be held liable for negligence if they deviate from a test method prescribed by a doctor, even if the specified test was unavailable at their lab.
The Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a final report charging a lab technician under Section 336 of the IPC (rash or negligent acts endangering human life). The technician had performed an Elisa Test using the Particle Gel Immunoassay method instead of the prescribed Hit Antibody Test for the complainant’s mother.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the technician had a duty to either conduct the exact test prescribed or refer the patient to another facility if the test was unavailable. “The act of deviating from the prescribed test cannot be considered anything other than negligence,” the Court remarked.
The Court also noted that if the doctor had not detected the issue and conducted the correct test, it could have endangered the patient’s life, thereby justifying the charge under Section 336.
Key Observations by the Court
- Negligence: The technician’s actions, performed without proper authorization and contrary to the doctor’s prescription, amounted to gross negligence.
- Outcome Irrelevant: Whether the patient ultimately avoided harm was irrelevant, as the negligent act itself sufficed to attract criminal liability under Section 336.
- Significance of Correct Testing: The doctor ordered the Hit Antibody Test, which yielded a positive result and allowed timely treatment, contrasting with the negative result from the unauthorized test performed by the technician.
Petitioner’s Argument
The lab technician argued that conducting the Elisa Test using the Particle Gel Immunoassay method instead of the prescribed test did not constitute an act of negligence under Section 336, especially since the doctor eventually performed the correct test and provided treatment.
Prosecution’s Counterpoint
The Public Prosecutor contended that the unauthorized test produced a false negative result, which, if relied upon, could have been fatal.
In its ruling, the Court upheld the principle that rash or negligent actions that endanger human life or safety attract liability under Section 336 of the IPC. Consequently, the petition to quash the final report was dismissed.
