AREA-: MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
FACTS-:
The father of the informant, the late Jeevan Lal Sharma, was admitted to a ward at CMC Hospital in Ludhiana on the 15th of February, 1995. However, on the 22nd of February, 1995, at approximately 11:00 PM, Jeevan Lal experienced respiratory distress. Consequently, Vijay Lal Sharma, the complainant's elder brother, contacted the nurse on duty at that time. The nurse immediately summoned a doctor to attend to Jeevan Lal. Unfortunately, despite the urgency of the situation, no doctor arrived to treat the patient for a period of 20-25 minutes.
Eventually, the accused in this case, Dr. Jacob Mathew, and his associate, Dr. Allen Joseph, entered the patient's room. Upon examination, it was discovered that Jeevan Lal's mouth was connected to an oxygen cylinder. However, this proved to be futile in addressing the patient's worsening condition. Subsequently, it was revealed that the oxygen cylinder was empty, and there was no replacement gas cylinder available in the vicinity.
Vijay Sharma, in the meantime, went to retrieve a gas cylinder from an adjacent room. However, it took approximately 5-7 minutes to procure the cylinder, and when it was obtained, there was no apparatus available to make it operational. Tragically, by this point, another medical professional had pronounced Jeevan Lal Sharma dead.
The two doctors were the targets of a lawsuit. In an appeal under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant asked the High Court to throw out the FIR and all related proceedings. The single experienced judge who heard the petition concluded that there was insufficient evidence to quash the accusation. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave.
ISSUES -:
1. Is there a difference in civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence?
2. Whether a different standard is applicable for recording a finding of negligence when a professional, in particular, a doctor is to be held guilty of negligence?
JUDGMENT-:
After a thorough evaluation of a professional's actions, they may be held accountable for negligence if they are found to have either lacked the expertise they claimed to possess or failed to exercise the talent they possessed with reasonable competence in the specific circumstance. The appellant in this case was not found to have committed criminal recklessness or negligence, even if all allegations were deemed true. The concept of carelessness is interpreted differently in civil and criminal law, where actions deemed careless in civil law may not qualify as such in criminal law.
The complainant does not argue that the accused-appellant lacked the medical knowledge required to care for the patient in question. Instead, the issue at hand is the lack of an available oxygen cylinder, whether due to the hospital's failure to keep one in stock or because the cylinder was discovered to be empty. As a result, the hospital administration may face civil liability (although we do not express an opinion on this matter), while the accused-appellant cannot be prosecuted under Section 304-A of the IPC based on Bolam's test results.
Well explained!!