Fact of the case :

On February 15, 1995, the informant's father, was admitted as a patient in the private ward of a hospital. On February 22, 1995 at about 11 p.m., the patient felt difficulty in breathing. The complainant's elder brother, who was present in the room contacted the duty nurse, who in turn called a doctor to attend to the patient. No doctor turned up for 20-25 minutes. Then doctors came to the room of the patient. An oxygen cylinder was brought and connected to the mouth of the patient, but the breathing problem increased further. The patient tried to get up, but the medical staff asked him to remain in the bed. The oxygen cylinder was found to be empty. There was no other gas cylinder available in the room. Son of the patient went to the adjoining room and brought a gas cylinder. However, there was no arrangement to make the gas cylinder functional and meanwhile, 5-7 minutes were wasted. By this time, another doctor came and declared that the patient was dead. 

The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A, (now section 106 of BNS) but it is settled that in criminal law, negligence or recklessness must be of such a high degree as to be ‘gross’.

Issue involved:

Whether Dr. Mathew could be held liable for medical negligence in the treatment of the patient.

The Supreme Court of India stipulates the guidelines to be followed before launching a prosecution against a doctor for negligence: 

1. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do, something which a reasonable person — guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do which 'a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 

2. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. Negligence must be culpable or gross and not merely upon an error of judgement. 

3. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of shill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. It must neither be very high nor a very low degree of care. 

4. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonable practitioner in his field. 

5. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.

Held :  The Supreme Court of India noted that the complaint did not allege that Dr. Mathew was not a qualified doctor to treat the patient. Additionally, there were allegations of the non-availability of an oxygen cylinder, which was attributed to the hospital management. The court opined that the hospital may be liable under civil law for such lapses. However, the court held that Dr. Mathew could not be held guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)(106 of BNS), which deals with causing death by negligence, as there was no evidence to establish a direct link between his actions and the patient’s death.