Court says failure to conduct mandatory pre-surgery evaluation can attract criminal liability under IPC Section 304A
The Kerala High Court has refused to grant relief to an anaesthetist accused in a medical negligence case, observing that failure to conduct a pre-anaesthetic check-up before surgery constitutes gross negligence.
Court Observations on Medical Negligence
A bench led by Justice G. Girish emphasized that both the post-mortem report and expert medical opinion clearly indicated that the mandatory pre-anaesthetic evaluation was not carried out.
The Court noted that conducting such a check-up is a basic duty of an anaesthetist before administering anesthesia. Absence of this crucial step, the Court said, “definitely points to gross negligence.”
Background of the Case
The accused doctor, an anaesthetist at a private hospital, challenged a lower court order that framed charges against him under Section 304A IPC.
The case relates to the death of a 23-year-old woman who had delivered a baby without complications and later underwent a Post-Partum Sterilization (PPS) surgery on September 13, 2014. The doctor was responsible for administering anesthesia during the procedure.
Cause of Death and Initial Probe
Following the surgery, the woman died due to peripartum cardiomyopathy caused by primary pulmonary hypertension. Initially, a case was registered under Section 174 CrPC.
Later, based on medical findings, the police booked the attending doctors under Section 304 IPC, though eventually the anaesthetist alone faced charges.
Expert Panel Findings
The prosecution relied heavily on a report by a District Level Expert Committee comprising senior doctors from multiple specialties. The panel unanimously concluded that:
- No pre-anaesthetic check-up was conducted
- This omission was a key factor leading to complications and death
- The anaesthetist was negligent in discharging his duty
The post-mortem report also supported these findings.
Defence Argument
The accused doctor argued that hospital records would show that he had conducted the required check-up. However, the Court observed that this remains a disputed question of fact, which must be examined during trial.
Trial to Proceed
Earlier, the Sessions Court had ruled that charges under Section 304 IPC were not applicable but found sufficient grounds to proceed under Section 304A IPC. The case was then forwarded to a Magistrate court for trial under Section 228 CrPC.
Upholding this decision, the High Court refused to interfere, allowing the trial to continue.
Key Takeaway
The ruling reinforces that strict adherence to pre-surgical protocols is essential, and any lapse—especially in critical procedures like anesthesia—can amount to criminal negligence under Indian law.
